The 25 best vampire films of all time, ranked
From Nosferatu to The Hunger, these movies will keep you up at night
Film Features Vampire
Clockwise from top left: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Sony), Dracula (Universal), Only Lovers Left Alive (Sony), The Hunger (MGM/UA), Nosferatu The Vampyre (Shout Factory), Nosferatu (Kino Lorber) Graphic: AVClub
The vampire is cinema’s favorite monster. Ever since Nosferatu more than a century ago, bloodsuckers of every conceivable persuasion have dominated pop culture in horror spaces and beyond, and we’re still not through with them. Indeed, vampires films can be played for horror, comedy, romance, psychological thriller, and any combination thereof. Vampires can be metaphors for loneliness, anxiety, obsession, sexual desire, or sin. Or they can just be scary as hell. So in honor of the flowing black cape and plastic teeth you bought your child for Halloween, let’s run down the 25 best vampire films ever made.
This article originally published on August 9, 2023
136 Comments
Best tag line belongs to Vampire Hookers
What I loved about ‘Let The Right One In’ being so beautifully visual was not needing to read the subtitles to understand the characters.
I am not sure if it deserves to make the list or not, but Hotel Transylvania was way better than any Adam Sandler movie had any right to be. And I have said many times that Mavis and Johnny’s relationship is the best (and least gross/creepy) vampire/human relationship I have ever seen in any movie or TV show.
Yeah, the story was pedestrian and at times oddly paced, but the performances were all solid and the animation and characterizations were fun, and it even had some decent emotional moments. Not a deathless classic, but an enjoyable family-friendly monster comedy.(My first attempt at this comment seemed to take a wrong off-ramp somewhere on the information superhighway; hopefully I don’t end up double posting…)
Genndy
It’s been 30 years, so my memory could easily be at fault, but I remember Bram Stoker’s Dracula being critically panned on release as a self-indulgent mess. Was the consensus wrong back then, or does it just look better now after decades of mostly conformist, safe filmmaking?
The big criticism I remember at the time was the casting, mostly Keanu but partly Ryder. It felt a little incongruous to have these two hot young stars trying to fit into the movie’s pretty out there (and definitely self-indulgent) style, especially alongside Oldman and Hopkins, who threw themselves into that style and fit in perfectly.
I do not understand why people like this movie so much. Dracula is not a freakin’ love story (at least not as far as the Count is concerned). Also, justice for Jonathan. No adaptation has ever given him the due he deserves based on his role in the book.
The Angry Videogame nerd ranked every Dracula adaptation based on faithfulness here:I assembled the data into a CSV at https://pastebin.com/bLaaxyMD so I could run analyses with a Python script.
That was an informative video, but he didn’t seem very angry.
He’s angry at videogames
He’s more angry at Video games than movies.
No adaptation is perfect. At least Bram Stoker’s Dracula really digs into the lore, even if you ignore the romantic aspect. Just everything, besides Keanu and Ryder, really makes you feel you are back in that era and makes you feel immersed. I don’t think any of them really did that. Nosferatu deservedly comes second in that regard and it’s spinoff Shadow of the Vampire. Those movies feel like I really stepped into that world. Not many movies can say that.
Your memory is correct. It has plenty of things to recommend it, especially Gary Oldman and some ingenious visual work by Coppola, but overall it doesn’t work and has a distractingly terrible performance by Keanu Reeves. And even if one is in the minority and likes the film, I can’t see any reason to put it #1 except for clickbait.
It has plenty of things to recommend it, especially Gary Oldman Monica Bellucci.FIFY.
I saw Bram Stoker’s Dracula in theaters in 1992 and I didn’t think it was a bad as the critics said, but I don’t think it’s #1. I’d put Let The Right One In at #1 because the movie is heartbreakingly beautiful and the book was equally great.
I was about halfway through the book of Let the Right One In when I began to realize what it was leading to, what Oskar is going to become and what his life is going to be like. (SPOILER: he’s not going to be an immortal, all-powerful vampire – he’s going to be a servant [at best], till he dies, and it’s going to be a sad existence.)I don’t know if that makes me obtuse, like maybe I should have figured it out sooner? At any rate the book is fantastic and heartbreaking and the movie worked perfectly.
SPOILER…….and possibly a pedophile. Yeah when you understand what’s really going on and what happened to the last guy it’s pretty awful.
I’m surprised by the number of people who never get it. Its not a love story. Its a vampire noticing that their Renfield is slipping and recruiting a new one.
That was my realization after the movie too. The vampire lore is super subtle so I don’t think its bad of the viewer to feel obtuse. It just may help to understand vampire lore before watching. I don’t think the average viewer would understand either.
I wouldn’t call Bram Stoker’s Dracula terrible, but number 1 is a bit of a stretch. Maybe the rankers didn’t like subtitles, but I agree, “Let the Right One In” deserves #1. And they need to read the book to find out far more about Eli and the vampires in the story.
That was probably the nadir of Reeve’s critical and popular acclaim. He was just so badly miscast in this movie.
Critics being wrong about a horror movie when it came out that later becomes a beloved classic? That never happens! Apropos of nothing, did you know The Shining was nominated for multiple Razzy awards when it came out?
Critics being wrong about a horror movie when it came out that later becomes a beloved classic? That never happens!I mean, there’s a reason why I was asking a sincere question, rather than snarking about kids these days always wanting to overturn the opinions of their predecessors. Surely not every critically-drubbed auteur-driven film is a secret masterpiece waiting for a later generation to discover its greatness… but some have proven to be so.
I’m old enough to have seen Coppola’s Dracula in theaters. Reviews were mixed at the time, although that was one of the first times I remember the audience applauding a movie at the end. It’s pretty hard to remember now, but in 1992 the Bela Lugosi version was considered so definitive that Coppola’s approach felt like heresy.I don’t think it should be #1, but the film has certainly undergone a serious critical reappraisal since release. The visuals are just incredible, and I love special effects movies from this right-before-CGI era. So much of it was accomplished with matte paintings and rear projection. Even Keanu’s performance has aged better as he’s grown into a national treasure rather than the Bill-and-Ted punchline he was at the time — his accent wanders, but his screen presence is just as good as it always is.Of course, placing it above entries like Nosferatu and Let the Right One In is just asking for click-bait outrage. But I don’t think many serious critics would let Bram Stoker’s Dracula fall further than #5 or so now.
I agree—I saw it when it came out and thought it was ok; I recently re-watched it and thought it was fantastic. The visuals are incredible. Oldman, Rider and Hopkins give great performances (Hopkins veers close to overacting, but it works within the lurid confines of the film). I recall reading more positive reviews than negative when it came out, and a lot of the negativity revolved around Reeves’ performance. I’ve also stopped disliking his performance as much as I used to, for the reasons you identified!
Stephen King still doesn’t like it, although he’s wrong.
I mean , we got a good Annie Lennox song out of it , so theres that I guess…
No, you’re not wrong. It is not a good movie. There are objectively bad sequences throughout the film. Stuff that would embarrass a TV writer.It does try really hard to keep with the lore, I would put it in the low 20s on this list.
The consensus was right. It’s a really cool looking movie, but it’s not very good. I’d put it on the list somewhere for the dedication to practical fx and the visuals, but nowhere near the top.
Both. If you watch the first five minutes, you’ll get a sense of what the rest of the movie achieves. The narrative is absolutely a mess, and the American cast is really out of their league. But the people saying “it looks nice” are underselling how it keeps astonishing visuals on the screen almost continuously for two hours, moving from one image to another in a way that isn’t experimental but just different from most movies. As a horror movie it’s decent, but as a technical work of film it’s unparalleled. If you watch the first five minutes, you’ll get a sense of what the rest of the movie achieves. Its nearest analog is the Obayashi movie House, but Dracula is much more coherent.
I think people eventually softened on it just because it was Coppola. If the exact same movie had been credited to, I don’t know, Michael Bay? it would still be derided to this day as a laughable garbage fire. It’s certainly not a good movie or one that belongs in this top 25.
Not buying it. The critics didn’t soften on Jack and start calling it a misunderstood comedy masterpiece, just because Coppola directed it.The reality is that a lot of the movies Coppola made after Apocalypse Now were unfairly dismissed because they didn’t stack up next to his personal peak. Critics have been right to reappraise them. And some of them were bad, and we don’t talk about them.If Dracula 1992 was credited to Michael Bay, all anyone would talk about is why Bay never lived up to the extraordinary potential he flashed in his first movie.
It’s still terrible.
This article made me watch it again last night for the first time in years. I think it held up. Reeves is terrible though. Oldman was fantastic.
I hope it’s not a serious breach of internet etiquette to reply to one’s own comment, but I didn’t know where else to put this:I really appreciate the breadth of opinions given in reply to my original question; while I still doubt it’s a film I’ll watch anytime soon (sadly I have no tolerance for gore or strong violence), it’s good to get a feel for how people view such a polarizing film.
Look at all the reviews of any cult movie and generally most of the movies that are still remembered after a decade or more. Criticisms come and go, and now that literally everyone is a critic, I just don’t bother with ratings or criticisms more than maybe a little guidance of what to expect. You’ll like what you like, and that’s it, and if you want to learn to recognize, good acting, good photography, good story telling, etc. go look on YouTube and film documentaries, you’ll find some good guidance.
Nah. It’s not that good and definitely does not belong in the number 1 slot. Heck, the 1979 Dracula with Frank Langella is better and deserved a spot in this list over more than a few that made it (Interview with a Vampire, I’m looking at you).
No, its pretty terrible. The original is better than the 90s version.
I remember seeing this in the theatre and thinking:- Keanu and Winona were horrible casting decisions. They didn’t fit at all.- Oldman was very good.
– It was boring.
I don’t know why I should be surprised anymore, but I was surprised and disappointed to find it listed as #1. I don’t think it belongs anywhere on this list. For me, “Nosferatu” is the clear winner, but I’m willing to accept a couple of others. Not this mish-mash of tones, cloying sentimentality and bad acting.
It shouldn’t even be on the list, let alone at #1. Disgraceful. I rewatched it just last year and it’s really not that good.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula was in no way better than Let the Right One In, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night, Shadow of the Vampire, or Interview with the Vampire. It’s certainly not as terrible as critics of the day made it out to be, but I feel confident saying it’s not even close to the greatest vampire movie of all time.
“Woah, what’s this meat, dude? Mutton? Radical! Is that, like, vampire food?”
Yeah, its way overrated as people want to see Dracula as a romantic person (like 79 Dracula as well) and someone to feel sorry for. I rather him be a scumbag, give me Christopher Lee!But yeah Let the Right one is blew me away when I 1st saw it.
It’s behind some of the hammer ones too. 15-12 would have done it justice. #1 is laughable. Near Dark, Lost Boys, and Fright Night are even better.
Near Dark is almost a perfect scary/evil Vampire movie while lost boys is the perfect popcorn Vamp movie. I agree, I love all 3 of those more than Bram Stoker’s Drac.
I’m definitely team Near Dark and am sad that a lot of people haven’t heard of the movie even if they’ve heard of The Lost Boys. Near Dark is a fun movie in its own right, and as a fan of Aliens I also enjoyed seeing Paxton, Hendricksen, and Goldstein show up in it.
I didn’t know about Near Dark till the mid 00’s because of the Bravo Horror countdown. Then I bought the DVD and man I was so mad it took me close to 20 years till I finally saw it!
As someone who was absolutely in love with this movie when it came out when I was a teenager, I totally agree that it should not be top of this list. It might deserve to be ON the list, but not at the top.I think it’s still a really interesting movie. As a professor of mine once described it, it was Coppola taking the opportunity to experiment with a lot of different filmmaking styles all at once. I do think it’s one of the only Dracula movies that manages to combine the romance (in the romance novel sense, not the capital-R gothic sense) with actual horror and gore. Most of the ones that lean into the romance tend to shy away from the horror elements. But as others have noted, adult-me would prefer the romance have been left out entirely. Dracula doesn’t need a tragic backstory or an epic romance. Let him be a monster.
I watched that for the first time as an adult this year and both A) loved it for its lavish dedication to the source material and B) understood why people didn’t like it. It is clunky, overacted and out of step with what theatergoers at the time were looking for.I also adored the costumnes, the casting, the sets, the transitions and the special effects. I love the film but it isn’t #1 on this list.
This list desperately needs DRACULA: PAGES FROM A VIRGIN’S DIARY, and VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS.
Ummm No, I saw Bram Stoker’s Dracula in the theater at age 18 and I loved it but fuck no is it the best ever. It’s Gen X and Gen Z geek’s who think that. Top 10, for sure. FYI the remake of Fright Night is maybe a top 25 vampire movie as well. Also unless I blanked is 30th days of night on this list? Maybe it’s top 30, also Stake land was better than I thought it would be.
I know it was made as a TV series, but was any vampire movie responsible for more nightmares than ‘Salem’s Lot, and Ralphie Glick at the window?
Anyway, Return to Salem’s Lot was definitely a movie, and not a bad one at that.
You know, back then, if a made for tv movie really knocked it out of the park, occasionally it got a quick theatrical release. I think this happened with Salem’s Lot. I remember Battlestar Galactica came out in theaters for a couple weeks. Brian’s Song too, I think, fell into this category.
Damn that movie was scary. Not long after it came out, I was visiting my brother at Cal Arts for their annual Halloween blow-out. Partied hard and crashed hard. Sometime the next day, I’m waking up on the floor of his dorm room, looking up at my bro as he “hovered” over me from his loft bed. Scared the hangover clean out of me! We still laugh about it forty years later. Well, he does….
Yeah, pretty sure Salem’s Lot 1979 got a theatrical release at some point because they shot a special “coda” scene for theaters where Ben and Mark find vampire Susan in South America somewhere. Bonnie Bedelia in full vampire get-up was Fantastic, Stunning, and Beautiful. Too bad it was only a 90 second post credit scene.
The scene in Mark’s bedroom with Danny Glick floating outside his upper-story window was absolutely terrifying in the novel and wonderfully rendered in the TV movie.
I’m on the mailing list for the independent horror imprint Cemetery Dance Publications, and sometimes they’d have special offers for their mailing list readers from artists. Frequent King illustrator Glen Chadbourne did a few of these, offering very reasonably priced original paintings by commission. One year it was to send him a photo of your house and he’d paint it as a haunted house. The one I went for was when he offered to paint you as your favorite (or any) Stephen King character. I instantly knew what I wanted — I sent him a picture of me when I was 12 and he painted me as Danny Glick floating outside the window.
Shout out to my favorite Vampire comedy: The Fearless Vampire killers.As a kid in NYC I loved watching in on channel 9 on repeat but as I got older and realized who the director was, I knew why it wasn’t shown anymore. Still a fun movie with an amazing scary scene during the dance.
Blade 2 is inferior to the original. Bringing back Kris Kristofferson after he was killed in the original was a lame retcon, and it has CGI fights that look like a videogame.
Correct. I saw this on opening night with friends, all of us huge fans of the original, and we were massively disappointed. I remember the exact moment I suspected it was gonna suck: when Blade is fighting two vamp ninjas early on and it’s awesome —and then they stop and are like “we’re from the vampire congress” or some shit. It was a record scratch, and it all went downhill from there.
Del Toro’s Cronos is his best vampire movie,
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104029/
Cronos should be on the list, but it is at least somewhat debatable whether that is really a vampire movie or a fantasy/horror movie that contains some elements of vampirism. I think that may be giving too much credit to the people who put this list together, though.
What would be the elements that make something clearly a vampire movie? I’m genuinely curious.
I thought his vampirism moved the plot, but like all (good) depictions of vampires, was really a metaphor for something else.
So I do think that Cronos counts as a vampire movie, but it’s missing several core elements that I usually associate with the genre. In particular, the element of seduction is missing — usually there’s an ancient vampire offering eternal life, and there’s some level of conflict over the choice to accept the vampire’s offer. But in Cronos, the source is a scarab that infects Jesus without his knowledge or consent. He also transforms so gradually over the course of the movie that he’s only recognizably a vampire at the very end.The conspiratorial secret vampire council trope, or at least the idea that vampires secretly pull the strings using their Old World wealth, is also completely absent here, and that shows up in a very high percentage of vampire movies.
That’s his only early work I haven’t seen. Thanks for reminding me to put it on a to watch list.
It’s one of my absolute favorites of his work.
The Oldman laugh. Love it.
RIP Bill Paxton he was so finger lickin’ good in Near Dark. The best vampire movie to come out in 1987. Suck it The Lost Boys fans.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that you’ve yet to see Renfield. There are a few on your list that it is FAR superior to.
You left out Horror of Dracula with Christopher Lee and put that unintentional comedy at #1? Fuck off.
You guys put the Coppola movie at number one just to upset me, didn’t you? Some of it works, to be sure (notably Tom Waits as Renfield) but a whole bunch doesn’t. I wish the script hadn’t yanked a centuries-old love story out of nowhere, because when he’s not mooning on about that, Oldman is wonderful. Keanu can’t handle the accent, nor can Winona.It’s shot beautifully, and I love the set design, and yeah, I watch it every couple of years. But no, it’s not number one. (I would go with either Let the Right One In or the original Nosferatu…)
There’s at least five movies on this list that should be ahead of it, maybe 10-15.
Looking at number one
Man I hate this meme (and this part of the movie). Why is he looking so intently to his left only to abruptly shift his eyes and fingers to the right to point at the bait? It’s just weird.
I always thought of it as he recognizes the bait, so he’s looking elsewhere for the threat – specifically the large dune ahead to his left.
Maybe not the best movie but certainly one of my favorites is Larry Fessenden’s Habit (1995).
Love this one!
Granted, I haven’t seen a couple of these but, no ‘Blacula’ or ‘Vamp’? Shame.
One of my favourite dumb Simpsons jokes is Homer watching TV and the announcer saying, “Coming up next on the Exploitation Network, ‘Blacula’, ‘Blackenstein’ and ‘The Blunchblack of Blotre Blame’!”
Easy answer: Because those movies are not good enough. Go ahead call me a ra.cist
Personally, I think Blade II hasn’t aged very well. So much of the movie just screams early 2000’s edgy. Don’t get me wrong, a lot about the film is great, but I just think Blade has aged better, especially in the overall design and look of the film. There’s something more timeless about it how it looks and moves. And by taking the subject a bit more serious than Del Toro and intentionally avoiding anything too camp, Norrington got better performances from his cast. Blade kind of goes too far in it’s climax, but how can you not love a line like “Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill.” Not to mention the music is such a great soundtrack of late 90’s techno that still holds up. Del Toro definitely upped the horror factor and there are some genuin gross-outs and decent scares in the film, but I personally liked the more muscular, stripped-down, action movie vibe of the first one.
So I would put Blade ahead of Blade II, but not by a lot.
Hell yeah. Blade II is cool, but the first one holds up in every way that isn’t the CG. It’s a great vampire movie, but also one of the best superhero movies, full stop, which says a lot since like 100 more have come out since 1998.Blade not being on this list is unconscionable. Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill.
Having seen the deleted scene from Blade where Deacon Frost turns into a bad CGI blood tornado, I can tell you the CGI could have been far, far worse.
So you’re saying you didn’t feel like Del Toro was going down on you while you watched ‘Blade II’?
I understood that reference!
I liked how Blade II featured arboviruses (blood-borne viruses often transmitted by bloodsucking insects) but then I was in grad school working on those when the movie came out.
I would also put Blade ahead of Blade 2.Blade 2 is not quite as great but it gets points for putting Del Toro on the map.
No love for Daybreakers? Too bad. I think that one is sadly underrated. Great cast and an awesome premise (albeit one that doesn’t quite stick the landing – also a bad title).
Is this another list that AI compiled?
Wait, did I miss something, or is Morbius not on this list?
His time will come. His Morbin’ time.
This obviously wasn’t made by an actual vampire movie aficionado. At least it was better than the “Worst 25″ list, which should’ve been called “Worst 25 vampire movies of the last 2 decades and with a decent budget”. The omission of the one appearing in my avatar, oh glorious Zandor Vorkov, was a crime.
That one was only 16 but yes, at least this list delved a bit deeper.
You are right, it was only 16. My bad.
You are right, it was only 16. My bad.
i stopped at the lost boys bc it not being number 1 is just plain stupid. it has everything you need and gives you all the rules of vampirism and is funny and violent and quite frankly a masterpiece with the sax guy concert at the beginning.
It deserves a spot in the Top 5.
Really – no love for 30 Days of Night???
Aw. No love for Byzantium?
It never gets the love it deserves. It’s such a beautiful movie, visually.
Okay, as long as Bram Stoker’s Dracula is in the top 3, I’m good, but gonna add that Near Dark is seriously underrated and The Hunger felt sexy ass hell to me for some reason. Love them all, oh and the Hammer vampire film series with Lee were fantastic, because that Dracula always seemed his drive was based on his being so petty, which I found comical.
Not sure about the #1 you picked, but at least you put Ganja and Hess on the list. That is one amazing film.
I was doing a research project on Dracula in popular culture a while back, which meant I was watching a lot of film adaptations of the novel. In that process, I watched both the English and Spanish versions of the 1931 Dracula. (The Spanish version was shot on the same sets using a translated version of the same script with a Spanish speaking cast. The Spanish version shot at night after the daytime shoots for the English version were done.) It helped me realize how much of the English language version is dependent upon the performances of Bela Lugosi (not the best actor but charismatic as hell) and Dwight Frye as Renfield. The Spanish one is certainly not bad, but it lacks the electricity that those two actors gave the English version, and you can see how generally meh the whole thing is without those performances.
One reason (unmentioned in the synopsis, of course) is that it was only semi-directed by Tod Browning. Browning really wanted Lon Chaney (Sr.) to play the Count, but Chaney died leaving Browning despondent and hitting the bottle. He had no interest in Lugosi and made little-to-no effort with the rest of the cast. Cinematographer Karl Freund took over the actual directing. Even if the result was dramatically flat, Freund’s yeoman’s work would allow him to direct more the more inspired The Mummy and Mad Love.
“One thing about frequenting the AV Club I never could stomach: all the damn slideshows.”
I’d like to add two more: Dracula 1979 and Dracula Untold
Bram Stoker’s Dracula did win points with me for including scenes from the novel that most adaptations leave out: most notably a decent version of the ship-board chapter, and the climactic battle on the road outside the castle. But the lovers reincarnation thing was bullshit, and it took time away from the Lucy stuff – which was pretty great.Winona and Keanu hurt BSD before entering the theater because A) Their careers were solid at the time, but everyone instinctively knew they couldn’t pass as 19th century Brits B) Casting those two smacked of either studio fuckery -or- Coppola not giving a shit about cast bc he (at this point) was so in love with his visual process that actors were sort of beside the point -or- both, and then C) Ugh, self fulfilling prophecy. You take Coppola’s 4 greatest movies – 4 of the best ever – and there’s not a wrong cast member in any of them… so why here?So, I’d recommend watching BSD with the sound off, read the subtitles, and play the fucking excellent-as-hell soundtrack by Wojciech Kilar. If there’s a dvd option or criterion version somewhere with this option already crafted – then that might be the #1 vampire movie of all time.
I’m working on a script about a washed up boxer who falls in love with Dracula.
Title: Down For The Count
Three comments:1. The Hunger is really not that good of a movie, and the plot doesn’t actually make much sense. The only things that make it worth watching are (a) lesbonic love between Catherine Deneuve and Susan Sarandon; (b) Dan Hedaya (who makes any movie he’s in worth watching pretty much by definition); and (c) David Bowie actually learned how to play the cello for the movie.2. The main weakness of Herzog’s Nosferatu is that the viewer cannot tell whether it was intended as an homage to or a parody of the original, and apparently, neither could Herzog.3. Any “Top 25 vampire movies” list that does not include Love at First Bite is a “Top 25 vampire movies” with a serious problem.
I think sometimes people confuse “interesting” with “good”. The Hunger is an interesting movie, but it’s also pretty terrible, and I say this as someone who admires Bowie, Deneuve, and Tony Scott.
The Hunger introduced me to Bauhaus. That could either be good or bad, but it was very good for me.
Glad someone else recognizes the greatness of Love at First Bite.
30 Days of Night was awesome, and deserves to be here.
How the heck is Bram Stoker’s Dracula number 1? I think you probably didn’t watch any of these and just read the synopsis on wikipedia.
Needs more Martin.
The Monster Squad is better than all of these.
I guess I’m happy Dracula Dead and Loving It isnt on the worst list, but for me it makes this list above many of the ones listed – but maybe I’m not the target vampire movie audience.
Just this scene of the movie, the rest was meh.
Since streaming is the new cinema – I would consider including Netflix’s Midnight Mass. At first I thought it was slow, then I thought it was OK, then it got me, and by the end it was inhabiting my head.Warning though – I agree that Bram Stoker’s Dracula is No.1 so maybe you won’t want to listen to any recommendations from me.
Wait, so Paul Reubens dies and you run a listicle about best vampire movies and you don’t mention Buffy once? Ok.
I don’t know, but I really liked 30 Days of Night.
Of the films I’ve seen in this list, I really agree with the majority. Though for me, Shadow of the Vampire should be in the top 10.
“we are werewolves not swearwolves”
Guys. Come on. Bram Stoker’s Dracula is almost entirely ruined by Keanu Reeves’s performance. The only redemption of it is Reeves’ own admittance to how bad he was.
And no mention whatsoever of Guillermo del Toro’s Cronos?
I’d add Byzantium to the list.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1531901/
I think I’ve seen Blade II and liked it, but I can’t remember much about it. I do however remember Cronos, Guillermo del Toro’s other vampire film and the best of his film I’ve seen so far. Ron Perlman is in it too; always a pro.
I also really like George Romero’s Martin, with a similar “vampire of insanity” theme as The Vampire’s Kiss, but with Nic Cage at his most unhinged replaced with a really good gritty 70s feel.
Vampires (1998) and Vampires: Los Muertos (2002) could be in this list.
Shame this doesn’t include TV because Forever Knight was incredible, possibly the best vampire series ever. Nigel Bennett’s – aka “Lucien ‘the Nightcrawler’ LaCroix” – opening narration was chilling every time:“He was brought across in 1228, Preyed on humans for their blood. Now he wants to be mortal again… to repay society for his sins, to emerge from his world of darkness… from his endless Forever Knight.”
Clearly there’s some kind of Kinja formatting problem because “30 Days of Night” isn’t showing up when it should.
What I needed to see here was Captain Kronos, Vampire Hunter. Sorry to see it missed.
Where’s Romero’s *Martin* on this list? How about *The Deathmaster?* Or the original made-for-TV *Night Stalker*, for that matter? I don’t see *Blood For Dracula* on here either, or even *Curse Of The Undead*. What kind of a greatest vampire movie list *is* this, anyway?
Any list that picks Blade 2 over the original is mistaken. But what can I say, some dumb motherf’ers are always trying to ice skate uphill.
Jesus why do I do this to myself–these lists are ridiculously bad EVERY. TIME.
Lost Boys should be a lot higher.Interview With the Vampire should be higher-ish, but it’s not egregious.Blade II over the original Blade, really? You lost all credibility there.30 Days of Night is pretty freaking scary, and a great premise.Bram Stoker’s Dracula #1, no.
I watched The Addiction a couple nights ago and thought it was well-made garbage.