seen from Uzbekistan
seen from Maldives
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from China
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Poland
seen from Romania
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Greece
seen from Germany
Retro Arcade Write-up IV!
Not forgotten – the continuing adventures of a middle-aged American male, in a modern-day retro arcade.
Hey, they had Burger Time. I like the custom-shaped cabinet sides.
More machines and memories below the jump!
ReCount: Top 31 Portrayals of Count Dracula
The day after tomorrow is World Dracula Day. For the occasion, I’m going to do a countdown of my personal five choices for the WORST portrayals of Dracula I’ve personally encountered. However, I’ve always believed in accentuating the positive: there are, in my opinion, more good Dracula portrayals than bad ones. Even if the adaptations and reimaginings themselves aren’t totally up to par, Dracula himself usually is enjoyable to watch, and there are PLENTY of versions to choose from.
With that said, it’s time for a ReCount of one of my largest lists: “Count-Down,” a month-long Event I held in October of 2021, where I ranked my Top 31 Favorite Portrayals of Count Dracula, along with a number of Honorable Mentions. A LOT has changed since I made that list: all across the board of the Top 31, different versions of Dracula have shifted place. Some that were on the list back then are no longer present now, and some that weren’t present then have moved in since. As for those that were there then, and are here now…nearly all of them have shifted positions in the ranks, for one reason or another. Times change and people with them, and revisiting some of these versions has given me new perspective, while renditions I didn’t know about at the time (or, in some cases, didn’t even EXIST at the time) have only added to the challenge of choosing.
With that in mind, it took a while to figure out where various takes on the Count really placed for me, overall, but I THINK the results here are - at least for the time being - the most honest and fair judgments I can give. With that in mind, allow me to present ReCount: My Top 31 Favorite Draculas (plus some Honorable Mentions).
HONORABLE MENTIONS (Left to Right, Top to Bottom)
Adam Sandler & Brian Hull, from “Hotel Transylvania.”
Sandler famously voiced Dracula for the first three films in this animated franchise. Impressionist Brian Hull took over the role in the fourth feature. I know these cartoon comedies are really popular, and I have nothing in particular AGAINST them, but I’ve weirdly never really been THAT into them.
Alan Swift, from Mad Monster Party.
This Halloweentime production by Rankin/Bass features Swift in the role of SEVERAL famous monsters, as a whole band of Gothic icons join forces to try and steal a secret formula from Dr. Frankenstein, so they can - you guessed it - take over the world. Dracula is the leader of the monster horde, fittingly enough.
The Version from “Anno Dracula.”
I absolutely love this novel series, which blends historical fiction with Gothic Horror, and has many bizarre twists and turns. The premise focuses on an alternate universe where Dracula successfully manages to take over England, turning many of the population into vampires. While his role in the series is important, Dracula HIMSELF very rarely appears, so I didn’t think it was fair to give him a place in the ranks: it’s cool when he shows up, but the books are actually more interesting for other reasons beyond him.
Count Chocula.
Ah, yes, because if draining the blood of the innocent wasn’t evil enough, we now have vampires that give you diabetes. As iconic as this cereal mascot parody of the Count is, he’s not ACTUALLY Dracula, so I didn’t feel he counted…plus there’s just not much to say about him.
James Barbour, from Dracula: The Musical (2011 Studio Recording).
There have been several musical adaptations of Dracula. This one was the work of Frank Wildhorn, and is probably the most popular. None of them are all that great, in my opinion, but this one has some shining moments. Several people have played Dracula in this one, but Barbour’s performance on the 2011 Studio Recording is my favorite.
Kamran Nikhad, from V Rising.
This game only JUST came out, and I haven't played it yet (nor am I entirely certain if I ever will). As a result, I don't really feel comfortable placing its version of Dracula in the Top 31 yet. With that said, based on the lore of the game, the videos I've seen featuring the character, and Nikhad's absolutely bone-chillingly breathtaking vocal work, I see no reason why I can't give this version an Honorable Mention. In this game, Dracula is a tyrannical and highly intelligent vampire warlord, who proves a threat not only to humanity, but even to other monsters. He orchestrates things behind-the-scenes to try and regain his throne, with the player's ultimate goal being to destroy him once and for all.
King, from Kamen Rider Kiva.
This was the first Kamen Rider series I ever saw, and it’s probably my favorite (or, at least, second favorite). A Japanese superhero series inspired by classic Universal Monsters? How can I NOT love it? The main villain of the series is the mysterious King; while he’s never outright referred to as Dracula, that’s clearly who he is analogous to in this universe. Much like Count Chocula, I didn’t feel he actually counted for the main list, but he’s worth an Honorable Mention at least. He is played by Shinya Niiro.
Mark Hamill, from Mina and the Count.
Just like Count Chocula and King, this is another case of a vampire who isn’t TECHNICALLY Dracula, but is clearly a Dracula-inspired figure. There are two characters on the main countdown who are in the same vein, but generally speaking, I wanted to save the main countdown for ACTUAL versions of Dracula. In this series, Hamill plays “Count Vlad,” a vampire who ends up befriending a little mortal girl named Mina Harper. Shenanigans ensue.
Michael McCarthy, from…a completely different “Dracula: The Musical.”
Barbour’s Dracula from earlier was in the musical composed by Frank Wildhorn. McCarthy played Dracula for a PROPOSED stage musical, created by the musical trio of Evans, Orton, and Lynn. The musical had a concept album released, as well as a music video for the “big song” of the show, “Within My World,” wherein McCarthy performed in-character as the Count, costume and all. However, the show never got off the ground. Admittedly, I don’t think the musical was that great on the whole, but it’s still a shame.
Orson Welles, from the Mercury Theater Radio Production.
It’s Orson Welles as Dracula. I think that statement on its own explains why he’s so great. Weirdly enough, while I’ve gained more respect and admiration for this radio version on the whole since 2021, Welles’ Dracula has conversely dropped out of the running. He’s good, I just tend to think of many other Draculas more.
The Phantom Blot, from Disney’s Dracula, Starring Mickey Mouse.
I brought up this very weird reimagining multiple times in past lists, so you all know the basic gist of it by now. Disney has done this concept twice - first as a graphic novel, and later as a children’s storybook - and in both interpretations, the Phantom Blot plays the coveted role of the Count. I love the Blot, in general - one of Disney’s most underrated villains, in my opinion - but I think it’s more for his sake that I like his Dracula, than anything else.
Phil LaMarr, from The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy.
All I have to say here is…if you know, you know. XD A lot of people are probably sad I didn’t include this Dracula in the rankings, but trust me, he’s a funny one.
Count-Down: NUMBER ONE
HAPPY HALLOWEEN, EVERYONE! The hour has come. It’s the final day of October – the spookiest day of the year – and the last of my entries for Count-Down. I’ve been covering my favorite portrayals and reimaginings of Count Dracula from virtually every form of media. With so many to choose from, my selections weren’t easy, but we’ve finally reached my number one pick. If you don’t know who that number one is yet, I guess I’ll have to Hammer it in. NUMBER ONE IS…Christopher Lee.
It’s been six-going-on-seven years since Sir Christopher Lee left us at the ripe old age of 93. After all this time, I still miss him as if it was only months ago. I’ve honestly never missed an actor more in my life. Lee was one of the people who made me want to be an actor, and while he lived a long and very full life, the fact that I could no longer look forward to future appearances by him in anything was still rather disheartening, and will always be so. If there is any Dracula portrayer who can challenge Bela Lugosi for iconography, it is undoubtedly Christopher Lee. Lee’s relationship with the role was just as tumultuous as Lugosi’s, albeit for different reasons. Lee was actually a fan of the original Bram Stoker novel, and the popular Hammer Horror Dracula series – in which he featured as the Count - strayed much too far from Stoker for his liking. The first two films he basically did for money and glory, but by the time the third film rolled around, he was well-established and getting steady work from all sorts of other avenues, and didn’t want to continue the part. However, Hammer was able to entice Lee back again basically via blackmail: contract negotiations with Hammer’s distributors in the United States stated that Lee NEEDED to play Count Dracula in the films in order to have their backing. These distributors were a HUGE source of income, and without them, a large number of people at the studio risked losing their jobs. While there may or may not have been other extenuating circumstances that caused Lee to return to the part time and time again – not only playing Dracula for nearly all of the Hammer films in that lineup, but also in a couple of other pictures that were deliberate parodies of the Hammer Dracula – this, ultimately, was the main reason he claimed that he kept coming back to the franchise time after time. At least in movies, Lee has probably played Dracula more than any other person – almost a dozen times, seven of them being for Hammer Horror productions – and while Lugosi’s voice and certain aspects of his design may forever be iconic, Lee is just as responsible for the popular perception of Dracula. Firstly, it was with Lee that the idea of Dracula having a “true form” – a more monstrous appearance under a human façade – was arguably originated; this Dracula, seemingly depending on the shifts in his mood, would occasionally be seen with visible fangs and/or blood red eyes, while in other scenes he seems totally human. The blood red lining of the cape was also a Hammer invention; earlier Draculas usually had capes of pure black, or lined in colors such as silver, and in the very first Hammer Dracula film – released as “Horror of Dracula” in America – this was the same. Starting with the second film, however, “Dracula: Prince of Darkness,” the character was shown wearing a gigantic cape that was lined in vivid, sumptuous scarlet. In the Hammer films, Lee’s Dracula goes in essentially the opposite direction of Lugosi. Lugosi’s Dracula is similar to a Bond Villain (before Bond Villains were even a thing), or perhaps an undead Moriarty. He may be rather uncanny, but he is, at his core, a human being. He’s simply an evil one. Hammer’s Dracula is different: this version plays with the Count in a way that I feel is in some ways closer to the one in the books. This Dracula is an animal in a human skin; a bloodthirsty, violent beast who hides his inner savagery under a veneer of dignified humanity. Dracula says very little throughout all his movies; in the second film, in fact, he never says anything at all. However, it is Lee’s charisma and intensity that makes the character powerful; a towering, imposing figure of authority and danger, who is just as intimidating when standing perfectly still and statuesque as he is leaping at you with his gory fangs bared. When he DOES speak, you therefore feel it’s important, as Lee’s infamously resonant voice carries immense amounts of weight. While I love the Hammer Dracula, I feel another Lee portrayal deserves equal credit: as I said, Lee hated how far Hammer strayed from Stoker’s character and style, and longed to play a version of the Count closer to that in the story. In 1970 – the same year he did two of the Hammer films, “Taste the Blood of Dracula” and “Scars of Dracula” – Lee got his chance in a super-low-budget feature simply entitled “Count Dracula.”
“Count Dracula” – directed by the unlikely Jess Franco – is by no means a perfect movie. Its cheapness is pasted all over the place, and the script is something of a roller-coaster ride. Much of it feels very accurate to the book and captures all the necessary elements, but then other parts of it sag and differ considerably. It is helped immeasurably by its cast, and especially Lee as Dracula. In a way, I think THIS is the most book-accurate take on Dracula out there: not only is this the only live-action screen Dracula to look more or less exactly like the one Stoker described, but Lee brings to the character a personality and nuanced depth that one could argue is better than the film deserves, while never straying far from Stoker’s initial vision. This is by no means the most iconic Dracula, but he is perhaps the closest anyone has come to giving us the character the author always envisioned. This Count has the cold, calculating, corpse-like qualities actors like Frank Lederer brought to the role, as well as the power and refinement actors like Lugosi brought to it, mixed with the animalistic duplicity that Lee himself mastered in the Hammer films. He’s not a sex symbol nor a tragic hero, but he has just enough depth and attraction that you can still feel the gravity of the character come through.
There’s a subtle but palpable loneliness to Lee’s Dracula in ALL of his appearances, which Lee himself said was intentional, as he wanted to try and give the audience something that was – at the time – largely unexpected. Whichever take on Dracula you prefer – the powerhouse madness of Hammer, or the surprising complexity of the Franco film – Lee brought them both to life, and the role would forever be one that haunted him. Unlike Lugosi, however, Lee was able to shake off the shackles of the King of the Vampires to a degree: his career never really drooped, as he remained steadily employed all his life, and even appeared in major franchises long after Hammer shut down the Dracula series, with roles in things like Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings. No matter where he went or what he did, however, Dracula always dogged him. For Lee, this was likely a curse more often than a blessing…but however stormy the actor and his most famous role’s relationship with each other were, what cannot be denied is that he remains definitive for a reason. For me, and many others, Christopher Lee simply IS Count Dracula. For better or worse, that will never truly change. I hope you’ve enjoyed this countdown; thank you all for joining me.
Count-Down: Number 3
Welcome to Count-Down! All throughout the month of October, I’ve been counting down my favorite portrayals and reimaginings of the King of the Vampires, Count Dracula! We’ve now reached the Top 3 on the countdown! “The Bird of Hermes is my name, eating my wings to keep me tame.” Number 3 is…Alucard, from Hellsing.
Now, I should clarify something right at the start: I have not read the original manga for Hellsing. And in terms of the original anime, I have only seen a few scattered clips; not a single full-length episode. My knowledge and love of Hellsing comes almost entirely from the OVA series, “Hellsing Ultimate.” Keeping this in mind…let’s talk about Alucard, shall we? The name Alucard has popped up a couple of times on the countdown up to this point. The name, as you may clearly tell, is “Dracula” spelled backwards. The alias originates from a film entitled “Son of Dracula.” In that movie, it was actually somewhat ambiguous as to whether or not the villain of that story – Count Alucard – was, as the title indicates, Dracula’s son…or even Dracula himself. As a result, the name has been referenced several times in media since, with both stances being taken as needed. In Hellsing, Alucard is the alias used by the REAL Dracula in the modern age setting of the show. It’s revealed that, centuries ago, when Abraham Van Helsing and Count Dracula fought, the Count was NOT killed. Instead, he was cursed to serve Van Helsing and his descendants. In the time of the show, “Alucard” now serves one Integra Van Hellsing (why they changed the name to have two Ls is unclear; I guess it just looked cooler) as part of the appropriately named Hellsing Organization: a secret group of monster hunters and vampire slayers who, ironically, have the King of the Vampires as their Secret Weapon. Dracula playing the role of vampire hunter is a bizarre idea, but the franchise surprisingly makes it work, and brings to life a character who has so many of the qualities we’d expect from him by now, while also being wholly original and fascinating. Alucard certainly has an elegance and a sense of authority to him, and he’s very clearly attractive, while also having a sort of constant viciousness. He’s an absolute BEAST on the battlefield, sadistically and gleefully destroying his enemies, often luring them into thinking they can outmatch him before pulling the rug out from under them and brutally obliterating them in ways that are frankly too monstrous to contemplate. On that note, a word to the squeamish: Hellsing, in ALL of its incarnations, is a gory, Gory, GORY piece of work. It’s about as violent and literally bloodthirsty as it gets. If that kind of stuff really gets to you, I’d recommend avoiding it. For me, it admittedly makes me wince and squirm at times…in fact, pretty darn frequently…but I guess the story and characters just enrapture me enough that it doesn’t matter so much. Alucard has his soft sides, too. The reason he draws things out in a fight is not only out of sadistic pleasure, but also a desire to try and find a worthy opponent, and his motivations for what he does are much, MUCH more complex than one may at first recognize. Under the twisted grin and mad laughter, there’s a tortured soul hiding in the shadows. However, I think what I love most about him is that he’s legitimately SCARY. Out of all the Draculas on this list – and I mean ALL of them – this version of the character is, in my opinion, the scariest. Other Draculas have a few scary or eerie moments here and there, but this one is the only one who I’d say is terrifying almost from start to finish. And how ironic is that, when he’s our main protagonist?! I have to give credit to his English Dub voice, Crispin Freeman: Hellsing Ultimate is an example of an anime where I think the English voices are, at least for the most part, better than the original Japanese performers, and Freeman is no exception. At times he’s a little over-the-top, but it actually works for the most part (the Japanese actor, Jouji Nakata, wasn’t exactly subtle, and Alucard and this show, as well as its source material, are not the most restrained subjects). Freeman’s vocals can be effectively disturbing, while also mingling the other qualities of the character’s personality into the mix seamlessly. Whether he’s committing wholesale slaughter or teasing his young ward, Seras Victoria, he is delightfully INSANE in everything he does, but does so with an aura of sophistication as well. He can be chilling and maniacal, or warm and concerned, or even brooding and depressed (which, to be fair, is a rarity for him; a change of pace from many vampires), and it all blends and functions no matter what. Above all else, however, there is one simple point that makes Alucard fit into the Top Three: out of all the reimaginings of Dracula I, personally, have ever seen, this is by far the most unconventional and unique. To be perfectly honest, that, alone, earns the character a TON of points. Tomorrow, our penultimate choice shall be unveiled! Hint: You’ve Gotta Love the Classics.
Count-Down: Number 6
Welcome to Count-Down! All throughout the month of October, I’ve been counting down my Top 31 favorite portrayals and reimaginings of the King of the Vampires, Count Dracula! We’re getting closer to the end. Today’s pick, Young or Oldman, is always interesting. (No, I make no apologies for that TERRIBLE joke.) Number 6 is…Gary Oldman.
Oldman played Dracula in the 1992 adaptation of Dracula – often referred to as “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” – directed by Francis Ford Coppola. While not a perfect film – at times it’s perhaps a bit too over-the-top for its own good, and Keanu Reeves, bless his heart, just isn’t fooling anybody as Jonathan Harker – it’s widely regarded as one of the best and most accurate takes on Bram Stoker’s novel put to film. It keeps nearly every major detail from the book, in terms of characters and plot, while also adding in a fair share of things all its own, all within a runtime just a little over two hours, including credits. That’s a pretty impressive feat, and the film pulls it off with a lot of style and a unique aesthetic and directorial flair all its own. As we’ve seen already, this portrayal of the Count of Transylvania was not the first to make use of the “starts old then turns young” idea presented in the novel, nor was it the first to reinterpret Dracula as a more tragic and sympathetic villain, with a romantic sensibility, NOR was it even the first to present the idea of the fictional Dracula and the historical Dracula as being one and the same within this universe. Yet by combining ALL these elements – making Dracula still a frightening villain but one who you could feel sorry for and understand, and with these other little quirks added as well – the makers of this picture created what many consider to be something of the modern day equivalent to Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee. Oldman’s is one of the most often spoofed and referenced takes on Dracula, and more modern takes seem to draw blood (so to speak) from this film than from any other recent adaptation within the past two decades. A big part of this, naturally, is Oldman’s performance, as well as the many creative choices surrounding his portrayal. Oldman’s Count is one of my top three favorites of his performances, and the only word I can think of when I think of his take on the Count is “decadent.” His Dracula is both tantalizing and terrifying all at once, with an unhinged mentality and a dangerous temper, yet a sort of alluring vulnerability underneath it all. He’s just as believable and fascinating cackling cruelly at his capture of Jonathan as he is caressing Mina Harker and cooing sweet nothings to her. He is a tragic and sad figure, but a deeply unsettling one as well; the raw sensuality of the vampire is captured here in rather carnal glory, but so is the real dread and horror the monster can spread. So often, especially nowadays, attempts to make Dracula more sympathetic and sad lead to making him more heroic, or turning him into a figure of fun. Oldman does neither, and it is this wonderful blend of sinister cruelty and genuine love and passion that makes his take on the vampire king so compelling. The film also goes out of its way to avoid making Oldman’s Dracula LOOK like the typical take on Dracula, and while I’ve never particularly liked the “Old Dracula” look in the film (it always makes me think of the Queen of Hearts), he looks rather dashing in his Victorian getup in later parts of the picture. He’s pretty much everything you could want Dracula to be: a savage beast, a powerful ruler, and a darkly mysterious lover, all rolled into one. Honestly, I feel bad for not placing Oldman higher…but the fact of the matter is, while in many ways he’s the most “complete” Dracula, he’s not necessarily the first version I think of when I think of Dracula in general. Which is to say, this isn’t a version I’m likely to reference in writing very often, myself, or take much inspiration from in terms of makeup and costume. He stands on his own and is iconic in his own way, but I think other versions just come quicker to the forefront of my mind when I think of the name “Dracula.” He’s absolutely brilliant and totally unique, and I cannot recommend this portrayal enough…but after much deliberation, I felt the one in the Top 5 were simply more iconic to me PERSONALLY, if that makes sense. On that note, tomorrow we move into the Top 5! I hope you’ll join me as I discuss my 5th Favorite Dracula! Hint: Often Imitated, Never Duplicated.
Count-Down: Number 23
Welcome to Count-Down! All throughout the month of October, I’m counting down my Top 31 favorite portrayals and reimaginings of the King of the Vampires, Count Dracula! Today’s Dracula is truly a multi-tasker: he spends as much time chewing scenery as he does biting necks! Number 23 is…Richard Roxburgh.
I’m fairly certain that “Van Helsing” was my introduction to actor Richard Roxburgh, and I’m equally certain this was one of the earliest “serious” interpretations of Dracula and various other famous monsters from cinema and literature I ever got to see. I use quotation marks with the word “serious” because…well…as anyone who has seen this film will tell you, I think it’s hard to say this is a proper dramatic reimagining and do so with a straight face. “Van Helsing” was the brainchild of Stephen Sommers; Sommers had first made a big break with his action-adventure, B-Movie-With-an-A-Movie-Budget remake of “The Mummy,” which is still considered by many to be, if nothing else, a fun reimagining of the classic titular monster for a new generation. However, after this first blockbuster, Sommers’ projects with monsters tended to fall flat of expectations, as his later Mummy movies never really held a candle to the first…and he did Van Helsing, which seemed to be universally panned by critics and audiences alike at the time, despite having a LOT of hype built up around it, and a lot of money thrown its way. Truth be told, I actually rather like Van Helsing. It’s dumb, but it’s a fun kind of dumb: the film was meant to be a modern-era sendup of the old Monster Mash movies of the 1940s and 50s. In this picture, we have a whole cavalcade of classic creeps appear, most notably Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, Frankenstein’s Monster, the Wolfman…and, of course, Count Dracula. And truth be told…that’s exactly what it feels like. Keep in mind, those old Monster Mash movies were over-the-top, ridiculously plotted, had effects that don’t hold up particularly well, and tended to ignore a lot of continuity and canon elements. This movie does all those things, and just like a lot of those older movies, I still find it immeasurably entertaining: for all its flaws, there’s just a sense of ludicrous fun to it. It’s rarely truly scary, and there’s plenty in it one can mock, but for a kid watching it, I thought it was a blast! And as an adult revisiting it? Yes, it’s completely absurd, but it’s got a lot of good things buried inside it, and I still have a soft spot for it…again, just like those old movies. Whether all this was INTENTIONAL or not is up to debate, but the bottom line is that the film, in paying homage to those older pictures, ends up having a similar legacy: it’s hard to call it a good movie, but it’s also hard to say it’s not an entertaining ride, at least for me. A key example of this sense of “updating the old” – both for the better AND the worst, one could argue – is Roxburgh’s performance as Dracula. Roxburgh is an actor known for being something of a ham; this is partially because the projects he does are often rather over-the-top in nature, to be fair, so he’s really just playing to the style, but I guess it doesn’t help the actor’s reputation. All that hammy goodness is on full display as Dracula, who honestly feels, in many ways, like a more modern, “edgier” version of dear old Bela Lugosi. Roxburgh’s thick dialect is certainly similar, as are some of his gestures and facial expressions. But while Lugosi’s melodrama was the commanding, powerful, charismatic sort, Roxburgh gives Dracula a more flamboyant, almost “glam rock” sort of performance. One person at least compared his Dracula to Jareth the Goblin King from Labyrinth, and…I actually find it hard to disagree. There’s something vaguely reminiscent of David Bowie in the way Roxburgh seems to glide from scene to scene, arms gesticulating theatrically and moving from classically debonair to gnashing his teeth like a wild beast. For all his bombastic insanity, however, Roxburgh’s Dracula is, at times, legitimately effective, and while the CGI in the movie is notoriously “meh,” I do love the DESIGN of his “true form,” an idea with Dracula that didn’t START with Roxburgh, but I think MIGHT have been popularized by him. It’s one of the first versions of Dracula I think of when I think of that particular trope, and his Brides in this film – who are equally over-exuberant in their performance – are actually the first versions I think of when I think of those characters, too, bizarre as that may seem. The same goes for a lot of other things in the picture; again, it’s silly, but much like Roxburgh’s portrayal of the Great Undead, there’s still something of value here. Besides, it’s hard to COMPLETELY hate anything Hugh Jackman is in…at least in my experience. (I’m sure there are some things you can completely hate with him involved, I just don’t intend to see them. I’m looking at you, Movie 43: YOU’LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE.) Tomorrow, the countdown continues! Hint: A Forgotten Return for the Great Undead.
