Customer Reviews
The Best Dracula adaptation witht the great Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee - By: J. Taylor, 20 Aug 2008 
This is an excellent adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, it doesn't remain as loyal to the book as other adaptations do but still, it's excellent! Peter Cushing is the best Van Helsing & Christopher Lee is the best Dracula, undoubtedly. On the DVD, the quality of the sound & footage is excellent, no scratches, this is overalll & excellent release.
'The Terrifying Lover Who Died Yet Lived !' - By: Paul Ess., 22 Jun 2008 Along with 'the Wicker Man' this is the finest British thriller ever made.
A big accolade but one it deserves. It made me jump out of my seat as a child, the scene where Christopher Lee bursts in, & starts throwing luscious Valerie Gaunt around. Despite my mother having histrionics, & warning me not to tell my teachers that I'd been up late watching horror movies, it set me up for a lifetime of wonderful (and occasionallly vile) film experiences. Whether you're a horror fan or not, this is a cracking, lightning-paced, sexy, gothic joy-ride.
The plot is bare-basic (and is detailed elsewhere) so 'Dracula' relies on atmosphere, beautiful visuals & superb acting, particularly Peter Cushing who, despite delayed entrance into the action, is completely believable as the single-minded vampire nemesis Van Helsing.
I read somewhere that Cushing had, in the writers opinion, 'an elegant, yet soulful screen presence'. I'm in agreement. He holds the attention totallly when he's on screen, similar with Lee but for different reasons. While Cushing is a better actor, Lee makes an unforgettable impression, & looks genuinely other-worldly.
The music track is sensational. James Bernard. One of 'scores'(sorry!) he did for Hammer during a rewarding (for us!) 20 (another score! Sorry again.) year association with them, & there's not many better than this one. Surprisingly subtle at times, but lets rip with that familiar & startling theme when needs demand.
Quality scenes tumble over themselves, most memorable, & disturbing for me are the ones in the windy, leafy cemetery, where one of Count Lee's female victims, resurrected as an undead, attempts to seduce a child into the joys of vampirism. The tension is at breaking point until a timely intervention by Dr Van Cushing saves the day.
Director Terence Fisher was on dangerous ground here, albeit implicating rather than visualizing, & doesn't it tell you plenty about the mind set of Trevelyan & his minions down at the censors board, who apparently missed the suggestive nature of these scenes, preferring to concentrate on stakings & other such trivialities. Perhaps it was the fact that the child was a girl that foxed them. Same sex & alll that (well it was the 50's!)
The ending too is spectacular. A literal reading of the Church's final funeral rites, set to a pounding music & acted out to perfection by two of dear old Blighty's finest. Awesome. Once seen, never forgotten.
Despite being reviled on release for it's sex & violence, nowadays, 'Dracula' is perfect family entertainment of the rainy, Sunday afternoon variety. (After you've been to church of course, can't be too careful!) And don't forget to look out for the comedy-actor colossus, Miles Mallleson who sparkles as a bumbling undertaker.
They certainly don't (and have no interest in trying to..) make 'em like this anymore, so treasure this one.
CHRISTOPHER LEE'S DRACULA - By: Shobha Varma, 19 Jan 2008 One of the GREATEST DRACULA FILMS OF ALL TIME. When this film was first released in India, in 1960, it created a SENSATION! People(particularly Keralites) had a new star. CHRISTOPHER LEE! Even now, 48 years later, the name on people's lips the moment one mentions 'DRACULA' is CHRISTOPHER LEE. Mr.Lee is the perfect Dracula. With dripping fangs & blood shot eyes, he is, in my opinion, the Dracula, Bram Stoker created. Pure Evil. No Love-lorn weepie weepie 'Count'.
Dracula (1958) (aka: 'Horror of Dracula') - By: Wayne Jefferies, 07 Oct 2007 Dracula (1958) (aka: 'Horror of Dracula')
This is going to be a tricky one from the point of view of reconciling the fact that this film is a total bastardization of Stoker's novel, & the fact that i've loved the Hammer films since i was a kid, & along with the sequel, 'Dracula Prince of Darkness', it was the Hammer Draculas that got me into the whole thing in the first place. Although to be fair, the film only claims to be based on Bram Stoker's book, it does take some major liberties with the characters & their functions.
From the start, the film cuts straight to Jonathan Harker's arrival at Castle Dracula, with a bit of background given via narration from Harker's journal, which immediately gives away the fact that he is there for a specific purpose, with unpoken implications posed by it's grave & determined tone. All this is implicitly totallly different from the character in the novel within the opening few minutes.
As Harker enters the castle, we see a domain depicted differently again. This is not a dark, dank, & decrepit place, full of cobwebs & rats, but a rather medievalesque, but well kept looking castle, boasting ornate carvings & furniture, with a huge, sturdy oak table, & a big open fire in front of which lies a big furry bear rug.
Then there enters not three, but a single 'bride of Dracula' who rather mysteriously implores Harker for help, at which point he establishes a major diversion from the novel, - He is not here to help Dracula purchase a property in England or indeed Bremmen as in 'Nosferatu', or anywhere else. Instead he's here as a librarian, employed by the Count to catalogue his library. Despite these divergences, these first few minutes are deeply atmospheric, & helped by a suitably sinister score by James Bernard, a strong sense of foreboding is established before the appearance of Dracula himself.
Dracula's entrance is one of my favourite scenes, largely because Christopher Lee gets to use that wonderfully sonorous voice of his, as he actuallly gets a fair bit of dialogue, rather than the just the hissing & snarling that he was usuallly reduced to later. I also like it because the viewer is kept guessing slightly. We see Harker's fearful face as the camera pans round until we see a talll shadowy figure at the top of the stairs. As the figure still in the shadows, descends the staircase, seemingly threateningly, to a full close up of Lee, it seems like the prelude to an attack. But instead, the Count merely offers the crisp greeting of a cordial aristocrat. There's almost a lightness of tone here which to my mind, fits perfectly with the sentence from Stoker's novel which i quoted as a comparison to Lugosi's introductory scene. This gives the character of Dracula a much more ambigious slant like Stoker's novel portrays, leaving the audience uncertain how to react, which IMO is much more effective than Lugosi's rather one dimensional villian. To my mind, though there are significant differences to the novel, everything about the film so far, has an alll important flavour of 'English gothic', which captures the feel, of Stoker's work, in spite of the divergence in the details of the novel.
After Dracula has shown Harker to his room, there are yet more differences to the novel. We discover that Harker appears to be some sort of vampire slayer who's real purpose is to destroy Dracula, & his fiancee is not Mina, but Lucy. We later learn that it's not Lucy Westonrau, but Lucy Holmwood, & that Arthur Holmwood is not her suitor or husband, but her brother, who is married to Mina! I'm not reallly sure why Hammer felt it neccesary to change alll these details of these various characters, except perhaps to make it more economic, but it still manages to maintain the correct feel to the film, which is perhaps more important. This is illustrated to great effect in Dracula's next appearance, as his 'bride' is about to bite Harker. Gone is the courtly, aristocratic Count of earlier, to be replaced by a snarling, red eyed vampire. Completely at odds with the first gentlemanly appearance of the Count, we have now seen the two sides to Dracula. Whereas Lugosi merely waves away the 'bride', the monstrous Lee throws the bride across the room in a fit of hissing rage, then half strangles Harker. The look on the Count's face as he does so, is one of sheer malevolence that totallly eclipses Lugosi's portrayal, & in the first 15 minutes of the film, he is replaced by Christopher Lee in the popular imagination of Dracula for the next several decades.
When Harker awakens, he finds that he has been bitten, & resolves to destroy Dracula. Although it does seem slightly contrived that he just happens to awaken so close to the sunset. He's find the lair of Dracula & his bride, who are lying in their respective coffins, & perhaps foolisly stakes the bride first. (Why not Dracula?) Then of course the sun just happens to go down in the space of a few seconds, which always makes me grin when you think how gradual a sunset is. But i can forgive it for the sake of cinematic drama, & also because i love the scene! As we see light disappear through the tinted glass, James Bernard's music is stridently emphasising the danger, & whilst Harker's back is turned, Dracula, after we see him deliver the slightest of grins, makes his escape, only to appear at the top of the stairs to confront the terrified Harker...... I love it!
From this point on, the Hammer Dracula takes on another variant. Dracula does not travel to England, & this is a pity because i would like to've seen what Hammer would've done with the scenes aboard Dracula's 'ship of death'. Instead, the Lucy, Mina, Holmwood, etc... are living in the north east european town of Klausenberg, which not too far from the vincinity of Dracula's castle. Most of the Hammer Dracula's have a similar setting, & in a 19th Century period, which once again gives the productions that distinctly 'English Gothic' feel, that comes across as almost an alllegory for Victorian England, despite the european locale. It's here that we meet the film's other principal character, Dr.Van Helsing, superbly played by the legendary Peter Cushing.
Cushing's Van Helsing is far more dynamic than any of his predecessors, or their alllegorical counterparts. Like Van Helsing in the novel, he places equal importance in both the mystical, & in the scientific. Whilst he's dishing out the garlic on one hand, he's using a comtemporary dictaphone for recording his notes, which is carried over from the novel.
In another deviation from the novel, Van Helsing stakes Harker, & makes his way to his home to deliver the news to his family. It's here that we meet Arthur Holmwood, who becomes Van Helsing's somewhat unwilling assistant. Here his sister Lucy has been receiving nightly visits from Dracula, & eventuallly Van Helsing is callled in to help, but alas he is too late to save Lucy, who convinces Gerda the housekeeper to remove the garlic that Van Helsing gave intructions to be used to protect her, But it's only after Holmwood reads Harker's diary, given to him by Van Helsing, that he starts to become convinced of his sister's fate.
This is followed by another favourite scene of mine, where the little girl Tania meets her Aunt Lucy, who is now a full vampire. This scene is a deiliciously creepy night time scene, which has an undertone of grave danger for the child, because the implication is that 'Aunt Lucy' would quite happily vampirize her own young neice. This is something that Ann Rice's work touches on even more strongly. In 'Interview With A Vampire', Kirsten Dunst plays a vampirized child, & the message is that nothing is sacred to the vampire......
Luckily for young Tania, Lucy is spotted by Holmwood, who can't believe that he's seeing his sister, & she quickly tries to turn this to her advantage, but Van Helsing intercedes holding out a cross & burning her forehead with it. Not only does Carol Marsh make an excellent job of playing the vampirized Lucy, but Cushing's look of grim determination as he advances on Lucy & eventuallly goes on to stake her, makes his Van Helsing wholly convincing. Only Michael Gough lets the side down slightly IMO, with his static & rather hammy portrayal of Holmwood.
Meanwhile, whilst Van Helsing & Holmwood begin to make efforts to track down Dracula, they soon discover that the cunning Count has made Mina his next intended victim.
Up to now we've seen hints of the Count's sensuality in Lee's performance, but nothing explicit. Dracula as written by Stoker did indeed have a sensual & possibly even sexual side to his nature, but as i remember, he was always portrayed as slightly abhorrent at the same time. Beguiling, but never reallly 'attractive'. Some people dislike the fact that Hammer went against this factor, & gave Christopher Lee's Dracula a certain sexual attraction. Lee has the combination of being quite good looking, but in a slightly demonic way, & Hammer definitely used this appeal.
When we see Dracula make his moves on Mina, this is the first time the Count is seen with these distinctly sensual/sexual overtones. Melissa Stribling who plays Mina, whilst successfully getting across Mina's fear of Dracula as he approaches her, also manages to give off a marvelously subtle sense of anticipation in her facial expressions. Lee for his part, is both malevolent & dominating, but before the Count goes for the neck, he tantalizingly plays about Mina's face. Almost, but not quite kissing her, seemingly sniffing at her skin. It's alll marvelously seductive & yet at the same time, it never lose the sense of danger. I think it's a combination that works reallly well, even if it was never quite like that in the novel.
Mina is saved only when Van Helsing performs a blood transfusion from Holmwood, & after Van Helsing discovers Dracula's coffin in the cellar, Dracula abducts Mina & makes off back for the castle, before dawn breaks. After a frantic coach & horses chase, there's a final confrontation between Dracula & Van Helsing in the castle. Dracula of course has great strength, but the wiley Van Helsing feigns unconciousness, & so catches Dracula off guard. In a fantastic, edge of the seat climax to the film, which in striking contrast to the feeble, anti-climatic ending to the Universal production, Van Helsing launches himself across the top of the huge oak table, & as if egged on by James Bernard's dramatic music, lunges at the great curtains, tearing them down with his body weight.
As i noted in my 'Nosferatu' review, sunlight did not destroy Dracula in Stoker's novel, he was only weakend by it, but perhaps Hammer took their cue from Murnau in making sunlight deadly to Dracula. It has certainly become an ingrained part of the vampire mythos in films.
As the shaft of sunlight penetrates the room, Dracula's foot is caught, & Van Helsing forces the disabled Dracula fully into the sunlight by advancing on him with two candlesticks held together in the shape of a cross. Dracula's body collapses like a deflating ballloon, & disintegrates to a fine ash in what i think is a brilliant ending to this pacy, gutsy adaptation.
Hammer would eventuallly follow up with several sequels, which i'll touch at some point over the next week. Whilst some of the latter sequels were getting rather poor, particularly IMO, when they tried to move Dracula out of the gothic setting & into the contemporary era, they a created a Dracula in Christopher Lee that was to become totallly iconic, & is still arguably the most popular & memorable portrayal to date. Despite the fact that techinicallly, this first film is probably the most unfaithful of alll the adapatations of Stoker's novel, It still remains my personal favourite, & there wouldn't be a contender to it's crown until another certain adaption which i adore, was made many years later. The Hammer era for me is the equivalent of the Pertwee era in terms of personal nostalgia, & you alll know how much i love that! So for me, this film gets 9.5/10 based on pure enjoyability factor.
Cushing vs. Lee classic! - By: Matthew Mercy, 23 Dec 2006 Far & away the best Dracula movie yet made, this is a classic piece of cinema that in my view ranks as the finest gothic horror film. If Hammer hadn't made any more Dracula movies after this one, these days it would be viewed alongside David Lean's Great Expectations as one of British cinema's great literary adaptations. Instead, it is simply remembered as the first in a series of exploitation movies that went downhill with every subsequent episode, ending with some real dreck in the early 1970s. But Fisher's film, only his second gothic horror, did justice to the story in a way that no other filmmaker has been able to repeat. It's scary, sexy, action-packed, laced with atmosphere, & shows no signs at alll of the low budget it was made under. The photography is gorgeous, the sets even better, & the music just perfect. The ending, a violent piece of hand-to-hand combat between Count Dracula & his nemesis Dr Van Helsing, was unlike anything else seen in British cinema up to that point, & the special effects still impress today. But what reallly makes the film work are the performances of Christopher Lee & (especiallly) Peter Cushing in the lead roles. Lee's star-making turn here ensured his status as a cinematic villain, & has typecast him for the rest of his career. Cushing meanwhile, enjoys one of his two signature roles (the other of course being Baron Frankenstein), & he provides us with by far the strongest & most impressive Van Helsing on film. His vampire-buster is a dangerous, Christian fanatic, a celibate, lonely scientist who battles Dracula not for personal reward but because he knows he is the only man strong & wise enough to be able to do so & survive. This Van Helsing doesn't provide comfort & advice to violated women & their weak husbands; he simply gets on with the job of hunting down & destroying the vampire, & is utterly merciless in doing so.
