Horror of Dracula (1958) User Reviews

The most influential British film

[msquared · 8/10 · 6 June 2006]

It's difficult to overestimate the significance of Dracula. Far more so than its predecessor, The Curse of Frankenstein, it set the tone for Hammer's movie output over the next two decades - the two decades (1956-1976) when British films, or at least British horror films, were among the best, most admired and most imitated in the world. A far cry from the terribly English whimsy of the Thirties and Forties, or the provincial, "arty" stuff that's predominated since the end of the Eady levy in the 1980s.

With this movie, Hammer not only created an international star out of Christopher Lee, but a worldwide phenomenon that persists, in series such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and films like Sleepy Hollow, to the present day. Taking the Kensington gore quotient of The Curse of Frankenstein, and combining it with an unprecedented dose of eroticised violence, Dracula revolutionised horror, ultimately leading to the breasts and blood exploitation movies of the Seventies, as well as the heavy sexual overtones of films such as Alien and The Company of Wolves.

The movie benefits from two astonishing central performances. Christopher Lee's Dracula is a creation of passionate intensity, to whom Cushing's monomaniacal Van Helsing is the antithesis – fire and steel; hot-blooded animal instinct versus cool scientific rationalism. This has led some critics to identify Van Helsing as the real villain of the piece, a brutal fanatic who coldly pounds a stake through the vampirised Lucy. Either way, both actors give supremely effective performances. The final confrontation between the two remains the single most iconic scene in any Hammer film. Hardly surprising, given their on screen charisma, that Lee should reprise his role six times and Cushing four.

The most influential British movie of all time, Dracula's electric mix of sex and death fuelled a global revolution in genre film-making, and presented Hammer with a formula that they would return to again and again over the next two decades.

The new face of Dracula

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 31 December 2018]

Sticking closer to the time of Bram Stoker's novel, Horror Of Dracula was the second of many joint appearances of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. With fangs baring and a look of menace permanently on his countenance, Christopher Lee became the new face of Dracula only two years after Bela Lugosi died. He became the new face of Dracula and unlike Lugosi who only made two appearances as the Count, Lee did quite a few more Dracula films.

His Dr. Von Helsing is Peter Cushing also getting started in his career in horror films. These two were the mainstays of Hammer films and with their release in America became as known in America as they were in the United Kingdom.

Also in the cast is Michael Gough who did a few horror flicks himself as a man who loses a sister and her fiance to the evil blood drinking undead count and nearly loses another sister.

The film is quite a bit more gory than the Lugosi classic which relied more on the Gothic sets created at Universal Studios. Dracula deals in blood and that's what the movie going public got here and plenty of it.

After 60 years and after 40 years when Hammer films went out of business, Horror Of Dracula hasn't lost a bit of bite.

Bram Stoker's classic gets a makeover....Hammer style!

[The_Void · 8/10 · 19 December 2004]

Often regarded as the highlight of Hammer horror's oeuvre, The Horror of Dracula stands up today as a fresh and inventive take on what is maybe the best story ever written. Hammer is a studio that has had many a fine hour, and although this is one indeed; I think that there are several other films from their ranks that just top it. Just, being the operative word as this is certainly up there with the best of them. As you might expect, the story follows that of Bram Stoker's original novel; with a young man travelling to Dracula's castle, and not returning. This attracts the attentions of Professor Abraham Van Helsing; an authority in the field of vampirism who then sets out to slay the malevolent fiend that is the source of all the foul play in the movie; Dracula himself.

Although this is based on the classic story, Hammer very much makes it their own. Of course, the campy horror styling that that the studio has become famous for features strongly in the movie and serves in giving it that classic Hammer feel. Furthermore, this movie features both of Hammer's greatest stars; Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Christopher Lee may be no Bela Lugosi, but if there was anyone other than Bela Lugosi that I would want to play Dracula; Christopher Lee is that man. He isn't actually in it that much, but the moments when he is are the best in the movie. He has an incredible amount of screen presence, and all of that is transferred into the character of Dracula. In a similar way, Peter Cushing plays Van Helsing. Like Lee, Cushing has buckets of screen presence, but it's all in a very different style. While Lee is a defined evil, Cushing is more subdued, which allows him to adequately play the hero as well as well as he plays the villain. I've got to be honest, I prefer Cushing in the bad guy role; but he still makes an excellent hero.

Terence Fisher, one of Hammer's premier directors, directs the film and does a great job with it. The atmosphere of the Gothic period setting is spot on, and a constantly foreboding, and intriguing atmosphere is created throughout. The way that the smoke drifts across the graveyard in the movie is among the most atmospheric things Hammer ever shot. Dracula is a great story, and this Hammer yarn more than does it justice.

A Cross You Need To Bear!

[BaronBl00d · 9 August 2000]

An outstanding film on all accounts! This is far and away a better vampire(Dracula) film then the Universal film because of its action and pace, its acting, and its rich musical score and lush cinematography. Now I like the old Universal film a lot, but this one just seems to have so much more blood coursing through its veins, so to speak. The story is a variation on the novel, and the Universal film is actually much more faithful, but Horror of Dracula compensates by having the core of the film centered around two polarized opposing forces of good and evil. Christopher Lee is excellent as Dracula, bringing to the character a genuine menace and some sophistication mixed with brutality(lacking from Lugosi's performance). The real star, however, at least for me is the venerable Peter Cushing in the role of Professor Van Helsing. Cushing's character is a man single of purpose in his quest to rid the world of Dracula. Cushing brings a great deal of charm, grace, and incredible professionalism to his role. Other performers are quite good. Michael Gough is very good in his role, and Miles Malleson is very humorous in his minute role of an undertaker. Director Terrence Fisher deserves most of the credit for the success of this film and the way vampires were to be treated afterward in film. Fisher directs with precision and creates a rich tapestry of vibrant colors and wonderful sets with his discerning eye for detail. This film's importance cannot be overlooked as it revolutionized a whole sub-genre of horror...and brought us two wonderful actors....Lee and Cushing...together in two of their greatest roles. That is enough for me!

Horror of Dracula (1958) ***

[JoeKarlosi · 7/10 · 6 September 2006]

As you can see by my rating, I like this film and think it's a good one. But the main thrust of my comments here will be to convey my personal opinion that, while I enjoy it for what it is, I do think it's also overpraised by many horror fans worldwide who seem to elevate it to iconic status, above and beyond all others of its ilk. "Horror of Dracula" is indeed a rousing vampire film, and a notable offering to feature the legendary character of Count Dracula. It is probably the first quintessential film I'd recommend to see if you're new to Hammer Horror; but when considered as the "definitive" be-all and end-all representation of Bram Stoker's immortal horror tale, it falls short.

In this obviously expedient version, the British Hammer studio tried to utilize a tight budget to full effect, and in the process attempted to present modern audiences with a completely different type of Dracula than they were accustomed to in Bela Lugosi's previous performance. So it is that "Horror of Dracula" tries to make up for having little money by spicing up the proceedings with a strong dose of fangs, hisses, blood, and a very speedy pacing, in what was probably an effort to distract from the cheapness as well as "improve" upon the more lethargic movement of the 1931 Tod Browning classic. And guess what? For many people, it worked! Audiences lapped up this approach, and the movie was a great hit both then and now. For many today, Christopher Lee has replaced Bela Lugosi as the true embodiment of Count Dracula for all time. Speaking for myself, I will always prefer Lugosi's rendering of the role, but Lee comes in at second place.

The story in "Horror of Dracula" is pretty basic, with Dracula staking a claim on victims, and then the great vampire hunter Van Helsing (expertly played by Peter Cushing) arriving to challenge his bloody rampage and hopefully save the day. As with just about any cinematic revision, some specific changes were made. And I've always felt they hampered the movie from becoming the truly "great" masterpiece which so many inexplicably believe it is:

1.) In this version, Jonathan Harker arrives at Castle Dracula (actually, with the meager budget it looks more like a cozy little cottage) fully aware of who and what Dracula is, but with the intention of posing as the vampire's librarian before actually destroying him. He also arrives on a bright and sunny afternoon (probably due to insufficient cash flow for night filming) which I feel ruins a good chance for chills and shudders.

2.)I also don't like that the voyage to England is gone.

3.) The character of Renfield has been completely written out. Now, in all fairness there were liberties taken in Browning's "Dracula" too, of course, but those worked for me (such as Renfield being the one to visit Drac and then being turned into his slave).

4.) Dracula's lack of any good dialogue. Bela Lugosi has more juicy dialogue in the 1931 film than Christopher Lee gets to speak in all of his many Hammer Dracula films combined! Aside from Lee's talk about there being "a great many volumes to be indexed" what else does he have to say? In the Lugosi film there are so many: "Listen to them - children of the night ... what music they make!" "I never drink --- wine..." "To die, to be really dead, that must be glorious!" "There are far worse things awaiting man -- than death..." "For one who has not lived even a single lifetime, you are a wise man, Van Helsing.."

5.) Though I do like Chris Lee as Dracula, my preference for his look and style comes more in later films. He's just too young in "Horror of Dracula" (he was only 36 at the time) and he relies way too much on just showing his teeth and hissing, and springing over tables like some acrobat. I'll take the deliberately slow, creepy and otherworldly strange creature as played by Bela Lugosi easily.

6.) The loud and deafening score by James Bernard is sometimes way overblown for a picture like this. Some of it is deliciously ominous and works perfectly (like in an early scene where a vampire woman eyes Harker's throat with a compulsion to bite) but the over-blasting of horns and trumpets are enough to wake the dead.

7.) The lack of supernatural abilities by Dracula is a tragic mistake. He doesn't change into bats or wolves, for instance. And not only doesn't he do these things in this but the Jimmy Sangster script even has the nerve to go out of its way to claim those old tales are "common fallacy"!

The final result is a good, solid, entertaining vampire movie that is not really "Dracula". In closing, I can't and won't take anything away from Peter Cushing. He's marvelous. And the final sequence where he meets up with Dracula for the grand finale is admittedly one of the highlights in all of cinematic horror. *** out of ****

The Best Vampire Film of all time!!

[Jonny L · 10/10 · 19 February 1999]

Terence Fisher's DRACULA (HORROR OF DRACULA in the USA; 1958) is the best vampire film of all time. No other picture combines the right amounts of horror, humor, action, and eroticism. Britain's Hammer Films is legendary for their horror films--this is the best of them all. Although quite different from the book in many ways, I feel this picture captures the spirit of Stoker's work better than the more literal adaptations. Everything works here--Fisher's tight, crisp pacing, James Bernard's throbbing, full-blooded score, and especially the acting. Christopher Lee inherits the role of Dracula from Lugosi and makes it his own--he still holds the record for most film performances as the Count. Peter Cushing is the definitive Dr. Van Helsing--by turns tough and tender, his interpretation far outshines those of far better known actors--Anthony Hopkins and Laurence Olivier played the part later, but their performances were totally inferior to Cushing's. And how about Michael Gough--Alfred in the recent BATMAN films--as Holmwood? He's a treat in his own right! Lugosi came first, and later films spent more money; however, the best combination of all elements is in HORROR OF DRACULA. It is required viewing for all vampire fans.

Very good, but no real surprises either

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 4 January 2008]

I have seen quite a few Hammer horror films and was excited to finally see their first Dracula film. Unfortunately, while very well made and interesting, not much occurred in it that was novel or interesting. Sure, the story was changed around a bit so that now the motive for the killings is more revenge than just a need to drink blood, but otherwise nothing that I haven't seen before. I guess part of the problem is that I've seen a couple of Hammer's Frankenstein movies and liked how they created a very different vision of the monster and monster maker from the 1930s Universal films. Here, it's not too different from the Lugosi Dracula except that I still greatly preferred Lugosi. Unfortunately for poor old Christopher Lee is that he's actually given very few lines even though he got second billing. Michael Gough, a perennial performer in Hammer and other British productions actually had a lot more to say and do even though he received lower billing.

So my overall rating is a 7, since it is competently made and fun for horror movie fans. However, due to it being very familiar material made in a rather familiar way, I can't give it a higher rating. I have 5 or 6 more Hammer Dracula films on DVD yet to watch--hopefully they'll shed some new light on the Drac legend.

Lee's Dracula reigns supreme!

[rams_lakers · 9/10 · 6 August 2004]

Hammer's Dracula, the first Dracula film to incorporate fangs, blood, and red eyes, brings the best Dracula to the screen - Christopher Lee.

I first saw this on TV at home on Thursday 5pm on a channel that featured some classics. I also remember seeing War of the Worlds and others every Thursday. Each time they repeated it, I was there watching it. I just bought this DVD for my collection and the color and quality is awesome.

In Stoker's book Mina Murray is Harker's fiancé and Lucy Westenra was Arthur Holmwood's fiancé. Despite these changes the story holds together nicely. Sangster manages to avoid having Dracula turn to a bat to make the character more believable. In Stoker's book the Lucy character dies and returns as a child-lusting vampire so Van Helsing and Holmwood stake her as shown in the movie.

Trivia: Lee said the fangs he wore were easy to speak with but not eat. The contacts he wore were very painful and made him teary eyed and his vision a bit blurry.

There are some scenes that were deleted. One was of the impaled Harker in the early stages of decomposition which was removed by the British censor when it was released in English speaking countries. Surprising because it was tame compared to other scenes. Another scene that was removed by the same censor was Dracula's stages of decomposing during his death scene. This scene was reportedly left intact in foreign speaking countries and the rumor is Warner does not consider the scenes to be worth pursuing. What U.S. audiences see is the jump to the final stage of dissolving. Lee says they were kept in for the Far East parts of the world because they were considered to be too gruesome in those days. There are stills floating around of them both. A solid 9 out of 10, this remains the best Dracula film ever made. Yes, much better than the overrated "Bram Stoker's Dracula."

Hammer made better pictures

[Igenlode Wordsmith · 6/10 · 9 November 2007]

I'm a fan of Hammer horror films in general, but my acquaintance was born from late-night rarities seen in black and white: neither their famous "Dracula" nor "Frankenstein" have managed to live up to expectations created by their later work. Not only did I not think this was the greatest horror film ever made, I discovered to my disappointment that it didn't even seem to be an especially good Hammer film.

The colour balance of the new BFI-sponsored print seems to be a bit off, which is a shame after all the trouble of getting fresh prints made. The one made in the 1980s apparently now has very serious fading issues, having developed a strong red cast; the new version still manages to have the Eastmancolor 'look'. The colour lacks Technicolor intensity, but doesn't look naturalistic either: I'm not sure if this is an issue with the original negative or a decision made while tweaking the separations for the restoration. But this really isn't a significant problem for the film as such, which has other issues.

"Dracula" actually starts off quite promisingly. The plot is changed significantly from the Bram Stoker version -- more or less a Hammer trademark: witness their take on "The Hound of the Baskervilles" -- as Jonathan Harker first encounters a damsel in distress who is not what he (and the audience) initially assumes, and then is revealed, in a strangely jolting moment, to be rather less of an innocent abroad than Stoker would have had him. With the revelation that Harker is deliberately running his head into the noose, preceding scenes take on a different resonance and the audience is dislodged from its comfort zone: we literally don't know what's going to happen next.

For my money, Christopher Lee is used best in these castle scenes. For the rest of the film he's barely a character at all, just an off-stage plot mechanic. In these scenes he actually gets to react to events, whether he is playing the suave host or dragging his vampire bride off the throat of his guest (who, in a movement of confused chivalry, tries to intervene in her favour). And he is very fast and dangerous. The effect whereby Lee's footsteps were brushed out of the soundtrack -- so that we see two men walking together but hear the footsteps of only one -- is subtle but well worthy of note.

But after this I felt the film went downhill. The villagers' acting in the inn scene didn't seem that good, and the whole scene has little bearing on the remainder of the plot: there is no apparent significance to the fact that the locals seem to be shielding the Count. And Michael Gough as Arthur Holmwood manages to be plain annoying; I suppose the character is a bit of a prig in the novel, but Gough combines that with sheer bad acting. Perhaps he simply wasn't comfortable with 'slumming' in a Hammer production? In the scenes he shares with Cushing, the contrast is all too obvious: Cushing makes his lines sound credible and natural, while Gough sounds as if he's forcing an over-reaction -- with the episode in Lucy's crypt a particular case in point.

The ladies are largely Hammer stock types: there's an awful lot of running around in filmy night-dresses in this film, and the characters have a very obviously 'period' look. Unfortunately it's the period in which the film was made rather than the one in which it's intended to be set...

More seriously, some aspects of the plot are far from clear: we naturally assume that the Holmwoods are based in England (especially given Harker's long and arduous journey), but it is suddenly implied at a very late stage that they are apparently living in Switzerland and somehow only a few hours' travel away from Castle Dracula itself! The status of the little girl who calls Lucy 'aunt' and is on familiar terms with Mina is also unclear for a long time -- the obvious conclusion is that she is the daughter of the house with Gerda as her governess, but eventually we are told for some reason that she is the servant's child. These points are neither explained nor made plain.

Peter Cushing is excellent throughout, and supplies almost all the subtlety in the film. Memorable is the scene where he steels himself to stake his own colleague, and the instant cut to the Holmwoods' house where he is understandably reluctant to admit just how Harker died; the line where Arthur points out that the supporting death certificate has been signed by Dr van Helsing himself gains a far more worthwhile laugh than the rather tedious clowning later on. Cushing has a good deal of exposition to get through, and always delivers it naturally and convincingly. There is no hint of blood-lust in him; he has no liking for what he has to do, but he does not shrink from it either. The scene where he is comforting the little girl in the graveyard has been rightly cited as an exemplar of sensitivity and intelligence.

Alas, the much-trumpeted death scene at the end is a masterpiece of over-reliance on special effects to the detriment of pacing. Dracula thrashes around losing limbs one by one -- first a foot goes, then an arm -- until I was reminded of Monty Python's Black Knight: and the final scene, where his face is supposed to crumble away, is largely undermined by a penultimate shot showing a pair of bright plastic eyeballs sticking out of a dust-plastered mask. Frankly, more effective horror in my opinion would have been to start with the scene where he is on the floor covering his face in agony, and then cut straight to the image of the trouser-leg collapsing into dust in close-up. The rest could be left far more unpleasantly to the viewer's imagination.

Hammer's Masterpiece

[kevin_crighton · 10/10 · 1 November 2007]

Hammer made several classic horror movies : The Curse Of Frankenstein, The Curse Of The Werewolf, Dracula - Prince Of Darkness, The Devil Rides Out, She, The Quatermass trilogy amongst others. However for me, their first Dracula movie is a true horror masterpiece.

Although based on the novel by Bram Stoker, the movie doesn't even try to adapt the book. Jimmy Sangster simply took the characters and events he needed, and went off and did his own movie, and it works brilliantly.

Jonathon Harker arrives at Castle Dracula under the guise of being Dracula's new librarian. Actually however, he's there to destroy the vampire. When he fails, Dracula wrecks vengeance on Harker's fiancé and family, while Van Helsing arrives in the hope of ending what Harker couldn't....

As I said, nothing like the novel but it doesn't matter. This is the best Dracula movie ever made.

To begin with, the set design by Bernard Robinson is superb. His design of the castle is fantastic. Jack Asher, the cinematographer does a stunning job lighting the movie, especially Dracula's first appearance. The music by James Bernard, taking it's cues from the title, Dracula, is wonderful, bringing excitement, dread, fear and everything you could ask for.

Terence Fisher, Hammer's most important director, keeps things going at a brisk pace, staging some brilliant set-pieces. Fisher made most of the early horror classics: The Curse Of Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Curse Of The Werewolf. He also made many more movies for Hammer, but this is his finest movie.

Where Hammer got lucky was Christopher Lee. His Dracula performance is gripping. He's charming when he needs to be - watch the brilliance of his first appearance. He appears at the stop of the stairs looking menacing, thanks to the lighting and music, then walks down the stairs and introduces himself! Brilliant.

But Lee is scary and terrifying as he needs to be, when stalking Mina and Lucy, but also almost passionate with them. And he proves a worthy adversary for Van Helsing....

...which brings me to Peter Cushing. Simply put the best Van Helsing on screen, played by the best actor ever in the horror genre. Cushing brings compassion to Van Helsing (watch the scene with the child in the graveyard) but also determination and obsession at ridding the world of evil. Even though he made a lot of horror movies in his career, and thus is somewhat under-rated as an actor, he never gave a bad performance and here like Lee he is at the top of his game. it's no wonder that they both became like a double-act in horror movies!! Although by todays standard, some of the acting may appear wooden, or 'ham(!)' and some of the effects, especially in the movie's stunning climax may have dated the movie as a whole has not.

It's still a battle between good v evil, which reaches a climax in a brilliant finale in the castle as Darcula and Van Helsing face each other. If you watch carefully, you'll see it's Van Helsing's knowledge that wins out, not strength.

When I saw this a child it scared the hell out of me. Time and repeated showings may have weakened the scare factor of this movie, but this is still,and will always be, my favorite horror movie.

Unmissable Vampire Classic With The All-Time Best Van Helsing Vs Dracula Performances

[ShootingShark · 7/10 · 30 December 2007]

Professor Van Helsing, a researcher into the arcane legends of vampires, is on a mission to find and kill the dreaded Count Dracula. When his friend Jonathan Harker is killed, he follows Dracula's trail to Harker's fiancée, Lucy Holmwood, in the hopes of finding and dispatching this evil fiend ...

Of all the screen versions of Dracula, for me this is probably the best one. It's not perfect; like them all it deviates from the book (it's all set in Germany) and it's not as stylish as either the Francis Coppola or Werner Herzog versions, but as a straight-ahead, no-frills, let's-do-it-properly version of the classic story it's fabulous - scary, evocative, constantly surprising and extremely well made. When Hammer decided to remake the old Universal monster classics they made three key design differences; make them in colour with flesh and blood aplenty, replace hammy histrionics with quality casts, and make the characters richer and more complex. I love the old 1931 Tod Browning version, but everything in this is better. Cushing and Lee are the definitive Van Helsing and Dracula. Cushing lends so much credibility to the picture with his no-nonsense, dogmatic, physical performance - he is obsessive, but not a caricature like so many other more acclaimed actors who have played this role (Laurence Olivier, Anthony Hopkins). And whilst Lee's role is limited he is simply unforgettable - imposing, lustful, wicked menace defined - his first appearance, followed by his charming authoritarian presence, is one of horror's best moments. There is also fine support from Stribling and Marsh as Mina and Lucy respectively; I love the way in Hammer movies the women are so much more sexual and conniving, and never simply dull screaming victims. Bernard Robinson's sets are terrific (it was all shot at Bray Studios in Berkshire), particularly Castle Dracula, and there is a memorable score by James Bernard which is a great example of the batter-the-viewer-into-submission style. Fisher, who made an astonishing eighteen films for Hammer between 1957 and 1974, had an incredible talent for the pacing of scenes; like the best directors he intuitively knew when to move the camera, when to generate suspense, when to play a comedy moment, and how to craft all of these crowd-pleasing moments together. This movie was so successful, particularly here in Britain, that Hammer made six more Dracula movies and nine other vampire films over the next sixteen years - all are good, but none are as good as this original. I was fortunate enough to see the recently restored (by the British Film Institute) print in my local arts cinema and it looks as sensational as ever. Isn't it funny how if trash can manage to last long enough it turns into culture ? Don't miss this classic adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, which is arguably the definitive British horror film of all time. Originally released in the US as Horror Of Dracula.

A must-see Classic!

[Andy6317 · 8/10 · 31 July 2019]

Christopher Lee is spectacular as Dracula, Possibly the best portrayal of the character to date. The film has aged well all things considered, it's not the scariest movie out there of course but it doesn't need to be. A truly enjoyable watch with a great cast.

Dimwits

[knocker-48568 · 7/10 · 27 June 2022]

The "Heroes" and Vampire killers know that vampires rise at sundown, yet they always go hunting for Dracula and his cohorts about 20 minutes before the sun sets, why don't they look for him at the crack of dawn to give themselves the longest time to hunt for vampires.

Not-feratu

[Holdjerhorses · 5/10 · 20 November 2007]

Fascinating, to witness the cinematic evolution of the "Dracula" story, from Murnau's "Nosferatu" (1922) to Browning's "Dracula" (1931) to Fisher's "Horror of Dracula" (1958).

The silent (and first) "Nosferatu" is by far the eeriest. "Horror of Dracula" is by far the most beautifully produced.

Yet Tod Browning's "Dracula" (with Bela Lugosi), as cinematically primitive as it is (coming just two years after the first "sound" film, "The Jazz Singer") remains the most effective.

Why? Bela Lugosi, of course.

"Dracula" was Lugosi's 43rd film, if you include his European silents. He'd been banging around Hollywood for over twenty years, before he made "Dracula." He was 49 years old. He either couldn't, or never bothered, to eliminate his Hungarian accent in all those years, unlike many other European actors of the time.

His "foreignness" worked perfectly for "Dracula." Simply, there has never been another screen actor like him. Perfect casting in the perfect role. Since "Dracula" is a period piece to begin with, Lugosi's accent and "staginess" fits the character magnificently. He is mesmerizing and utterly convincing.

He never before, nor ever again, achieved anything remotely as triumphant as that performance. (Boris Karloff, by contrast, was a far more versatile actor whose active screen career outlasted Lugosi's by decades.) Almost 30 years later, Hammer Films produced "Horror of Dracula" with Christoper Lee in the title role.

Lee's characterization occupies, at most, ten minutes of screen time. Yet he is indelible in the role. Strikingly handsome and tall, he embodies all the dangerous eroticism and supernatural athleticism of Dracula.

In color, yet.

Magnificently produced at the Bray Studios, "Horror of Dracula" was filmed in the same English estate that Hammer Films used for numerous pictures -- simply redressing the rooms for different films. It looks like it cost a fortune. In fact, it was a cheapie.

Yet the conviction and talent of all the actors involved raised the bar for horror films of the time.

Truly, "Horror of Dracula" is one of the best-produced, best-acted "Draculas" ever filmed.

Yet today it falls flat. It is "dated" in a way that Lugosi's "Dracula" can never be.

Alas, one wishes Christopher Lee were given more to do, on screen, as Dracula. But he's almost a secondary character in the script as shot. Nor is he remotely "Transylvanian." His accent is straight from Mayfair.

By contrast, Lugosi is the centerpiece of Tod Browning's hypnotic "Dracula," and deservedly so. We've never seen anyone like this character on screen, before or since.

Nearly 80 years on, Lugosi remains the definitive Dracula.

Astonishing, really, when you think about it.

The Best Version of the Classic Tale

[Michael_Elliott · 16 October 2010]

Horror of Dracula (1958)

**** (out of 4)

Hammer's classic adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel took the Universal approach but mixed in blood, violence, sexuality and of course vivid color. Everyone is familiar with the story as Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) tries to track down Count Dracula (Christopher Lee) and put an end to his evil ways before he gets his teeth into Lucy (Carol Marsh). I know a lot of people can go on and on about the various changes Hammer did to the story but I say so what because many of them are for the better. Dracula isn't one of my favorite horror characters and I've never been a major fan of Hammer but I think this is perhaps the best version done with the vampire. A lot of the credit has to go to the three main people: Lee, Cushing and Fisher. If you took the at times over bearing music score down a few notches this here would be a near perfect film. I think the updating of the material is rather flawless and this is mainly due to the terrific cast. I think Lee's Dracula isn't that undead creature that we saw in so many previous films but instead he's someone you really would fear. Lee's large frame makes for a very energetic Count and I think his height really makes the character someone to fear. The more athletic nature is another major plus and this is put to perfect use during the first attack on Jonathan. Cushing also delivers a wonderful performance as Van Helsing and I'd probably add that he's the best actor to ever play the role. You can't help but believe everything Cushing says as he's so believable in the part that he actually makes you believe everything that is going on. The two of them, when on screen together, create some real magic and really make this film something special. Fisher's direction is also at the top of its game as he handles the material perfectly and I love the way he keeps the action fierce and pounding. The film runs a very fast paced 82-minutes and there's really not a weak moment to be found. There were countless vampire movies before this one and there have been countless afterward but HORROR OF Dracula deserves its place in horror history as it was certainly something of a breakthrough for the genre and one that holds up very well today.

Limited budget rushed the production, causing plot and narration to suffer. Cushing and Lee were amazing, though.

[kensai-5 · 6/10 · 1 January 2021]

If you think this is the best Dracula movie, bless you. It's a charming opinion. Objectively, though, the production is far too flawed to crown an unbiased "best of" list. Its visual attractiveness might veil it, but the film's lacking budget caused fundamental cracks that keep it from reaching height.

Cushing, IMO, is the best of all the Van Helsings put on film. The right age and vitality to convince as both, sage and monster hunter, and the right charisma to root for such a laconic and stiff loner. That aside, it's a rather shallow characterization. We learn next to nothing about his background or motivation. Same is true for all other characters. While the movie has the same pretty atmosphere as most Hammer productions, the director only barely commits to the horror genre. We never linger on any creepy scenes except for one cemetery and Christopher Lee's performances, which are fairly efficient. But all locations are too bright and none of the victims are ever sufficiently terrified. Maybe to make up for that, the staking scenes are overly bloody. As a *horror* film, though, "Dracula" is mediocre, at best. I'd even say it's disappointing, probably due to the strong financial constraints.

Worst of all are the witless plot changes: Someone was given the task to rewrite the story so that it might match the very limited budget. That person did not care to make sure that the original events logically connect to the changes. I'll provide 2 examples: 1) In the movie Jonathan Harker visits Dracula's castle, which is not far (!) from his hometown (less than a night's ride in a fast carriage!). As he introduces himself to the count we are given the impression that he is clueless to his evil nature. Just as it was the case in Stoker's novel. So, we're not very surprised, when Harker pulls a big photo of his fiance from his luggage and proudly displays it to Dracula, mentioning her full name and giving all the details that one might require if searching for someone. Relatively normal behavior, given everything we know at that point in the movie, indicating that this poor fellow doesn't suspect evil. But... Immediately after the count leaves his room, Harker pulls out his diary and enters "[...] with God's help I will forever end this man's reign of terror." As we learn just a little time later, Harker already knew that Dracula was a vampire and was basically sent by Van Helsing to destroy him. He knew of his supernatural powers and that he drank the blood of his victims, turning them into monsters. All of these details are rewrites, differing from the novel. Now, how likely is it that Harker would place a big photo of his fiance inside the home of a bloodsucking devil and then tell him her name? Considering his knowledge and that she lives less than a 24 hour ride away, it's utterly ridiculous. On top of that, it's shocking how badly prepared he was, despite being sent by an expert on vampires. Everything that happens to him mostly makes sense in the context of the novel, but when placed within the rewritten script of this movie, it's just raising questions and more eye-brows than I have available. I physically strained to raise more.

2) After Van Helsing has to stake Harker, he visits his fiance, Lucy, and her relatives, to bring the bad news. They know nothing of vampires but Lucy has already been bitten, causing her family to ask for the doctor's help. Van Helsing, at this point, is hellbent on destroying the murderous count and all that is keeping him from trying is that he doesn't know where to find him. Isn't it extremely convenient then, that he discovers that the vampire will be visiting Lucy the very next night?! Well...yes...but no! Instead Helsing gives the family some instructions on how to prepare the victim's room and goes home, announcing to return in the morning, just as he did in the novel. The family prepares the room, then disappears, only leaving behind a gullible maid who can easily be convinced by the hypnotized victim to remove all of the preparations. Dracula enters. Lucy dies. Family mourns. Helsing mopes. I facepalm. Brows lift off. All of that made sense in the novel, where Helsing just acted on theories he gained from books. He had never dealt with vampires before and was forced to educate himself on their powers as the story progressed. He didn't have a reason for revenge or solid knowledge on how to hunt blood sucking monsters, but just on how to potentially ward them off. Helsing in this movie doesn't have these excuses. His knowledge was obviously sufficient to justify sending a single man into Dracula's castle. He had every reason and power to stay at Lucy's home and wait to engage the man that caused his friend's death...and now threatened to kill his fiance. The movie never explains Helsing's lack of action. It just imitates the novel, but adds enough incoherent changes to annihilate its inherent logic.

Other Dracula movies have successfully attempted to tell a more coherent version of the story. At least some of them were aided by bigger budgets. All of them lacked Cushing.

Great scares, Christopher Lee is awesome

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 8/10 · 16 May 2004]

Vampire films before 1958 were always in black and white and partially were not very gory considering that a vampire drinks blood. The Universal films were done producing monster movies and the sci-fi era was born with all sorts of creatures from outer space invading our planet. Then the Hammer Studios from England came along and the world never knew what hit them, we had blood, we had sex, we had great actors, we had excellent sets, we had frightening scares and most of all, we had color! Horror of Dracula was the first vampire movie we ever had that was in color and we were introduced to Christopher Lee, arguably one of the best and most memorable Dracula's. Standing over six feet tall, the man had a true presence and one of the most memorable entrances for Dracula. He enters the room for the first time with a gigantic BOOM and I don't think we could have prepared for such a horror film.

Jonathan Harker arrives at the castle of Count Dracula, posing as a librarian. He is startled inside the castle by a young woman begging for help, claiming to be a prisoner. Dracula then greets Harker and guides him to his room, where he locks him in. Jonathan starts to write in his diary, and his true intentions are revealed: he has come to kill Dracula. Harker again is confronted by the desperate woman. She begs him for help but then bites his neck. Just as she does, Dracula arrives and yanks her away. Armed with a stake, he impales the woman. But when he turns to kill Dracula, the Count has already awakened and is waiting for him. Dr. Van Helsing then arrives at the castle, looking for Harker. In the crypt, Van Helsing is horrified to discover Harker lying in a coffin as a vampire. Staking Harker, he leaves to deliver the veiled news of Harker's death in person to a wary Arthur Holmwood and his wife Mina, brother and sister-in-law of Harker's fiancée Lucy Holmwood. It turns out Dracula already got ahold of Lucy and turned her into a vampire. After convincing Arthur that Dracula must be destroyed, Mina -under Dracula's spell- lets Dracula stay in their cellar and now Arthur must kill Dracula before Mina meets the same fate as Lucy.

So is this film worth all the hype it gets? I personally love the Hammer Dracula films but I do admit they have a certain camp value too. Jonathan is played with such lack of personality and is so bland, at times you can't take him seriously that Van Helsing would send him to kill Dracula. But Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are what make this film great, they're terrific actors who have great chemistry. Their last fight scene is just incredible and the effects are still outstanding by today's standards. Plus the image of Dracula growling with blood dripping from his fangs is one of the best images of a horror film and is the definition of why we are scared of vampires. Dracula is not only portrayed as a monster, but a sexual predator. The scene with him biting Mina is so intense and has a great jump moment after he bites her with an owl screaming at Arthur. Terence Fisher knew how to truly give the audience a good scare. Horror of Dracula isn't just one of the best scary movies of all time, but it's a true classic in itself. It's classy, it's scary, it's intense, it's everything you could want in a horror movie. It doesn't kid around when the first image we see in the film is blood dripping down on Dracula's coffin, you know you're in for a ride.

8/10

Yikes! This guy really bites.

[michaelRokeefe · 6/10 · 15 October 2000]

What can you say about a Dracula flick? There are so many: but this is from Hammer Productions with the right atmosphere, castle, ample bosomed women, creepy effects and Christopher Lee as the Prince of Darkness.

Director Terence Fisher and writer Jimmy Sangster dared to recraft Bram Stoker's fable of the "man in black", with the toothsome smile. All in blood curdling Hammer color.

Lee takes the first stabs at becoming the master blood sucker. Also in the cast is that other stellar star for Hammer, Peter Cushing. Rounding out the players are: Michael Gough, John Van Eyssen, Melissa Stribling, Carol Marsh and Valerie Gaunt.

A masterpiece of Gothic horror!

[jluis1984 · 9/10 · 9 August 2007]

After the enormous success of 1995's classic mix of horror and science-fiction, "The Quatermass Xperiment", the relatively small studio named Hammer Film Productions decided to dedicate most of their productions to the fantastic genres. A sequel to "Quatermass" quickly entered into the studio's plans, but it would be another movie what would become a success even bigger than "The Quatermass Xperiment" and the birth of what is now known as "Hammer Horror": Terence Fisher's "The Curse of Frankenstein". Thanks to its use of vibrant colors and daring (for the time) sexual undertones, Fisher's reinterpretation of "Frankenstein" renewed the interest in horror films and set the basis for a new style of Gothic horror. A style that would be perfected in Fisher's next movie for Hammer, another reinterpretation of a classic of Gothic literature, Bram Stoker's "Dracula".

In this version of the famous novel, Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) is a librarian who arrives to Count Dracula's (Christopher Lee) castle to work. At the castle, Jonathan finds a strange woman (Valerie Gaunt) who asks him to help her escape from Dracula's enslavement. Jonathan agrees, but she is not a normal woman, she's a vampire, an undead creature who preys on humans to feed on their blood. This doesn't surprise Jonathan, as he is actually a vampire hunter determined to kill Dracula, who is an ancient and powerful vampire. Unfortunately, his plan goes wrong and ends up bitten by Dracula, transforming him in the very thing he was going to kill. Days later, Harker's friend, Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) arrives looking for his friend, but finds him as a vampire and is forced to kill him. However, this is only the beginning, as now Dracula has Jonathan's fianceé Lucy (Carol Marsh) as his next target.

Like "The Curse of Frankenstein", the screenplay for this movie (titled "Horror of Dracula" in the U.S. to avoid copyright infringement with Universal's film) was written by Jimmy Sangster, who makes a considerably different story than the one done in Tod Browning's movie. For starters, this time Van Helsing is not only the one with the necessary knowledge to hunt the monster, but also a proficient fighter and overall a more active character than before. Count Dracula has also been reinterpreted, as Sangster takes the sensuality of the vampire one step beyond, and enhances his aggressive brutality without diminishing the Count's classy elegance. A notable trait in Sangster's script is the considerable amount of development he gives to his characters, as while the plot a bit simplistic, he makes us really care about the protagonists while at the same time making Dracula a fascinating creature.

Once again, Terence Fisher's directing is what elevates this work from a good story to a great movie, as in "Dracula" he seems to take everything that made "The Curse of Frankenstein" a hit to the next level, resulting in the definitive example of Hammer Horror. With Bernard Robinson's beautiful art direction and Jack Asher's excellent cinematography, Fisher creates an atmospheric Gothic nightmare in bright colors that even today remains as fresh and influential as it was the day it came out. Fisher's use of color in horror here is even more calculated, as also uses them to shock and terrify as exemplified by his fixation with the bright red of blood. This time Dracula is a real monster, and Fisher makes sure to make him the ultimate predator, however, his seductive image is kept intact as Fisher plays on the Victorian sexual repression with subversive subtlety.

One of the best elements in this version of Stoker's novel is definitely the acting of the cast, which is for the most part of an excellent quality. The stars of "The Curse of Frankenstein", Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, appear here in the roles that made them legends. As Dracula, Christopher Lee shows his very powerful presence, making a terrifying portrayal of the undead monster that almost equals Lugosi's classic performance. On the other hand, Cushing truly is the star of the film with the magnificent display of talent he gives as Dr. Van Helsing. Personally I think that nobody has given a better performance as Van Helsing than the one Cushing does in this movie. However, the movie is not only about Cushing and Lee, as Michael Gough truly shines in his role as Arthur Holmwood, Lucy's brother forced to join Van Helsing's battle against Dracula in order to save his family.

The rest of the cast is also excellent, with great performances by Melissa Stribling as Arthur's wife Mina, and the aforementioned Carol Marsh and John Van Eyssen, who make the best out of their certainly small roles. Credit must go to Fisher's directing of his cast as well, as he really seems to get the best out of each one of the actors, making "Dracula" one of the best acted movies of the ones Hammer produced. In fact, if there's a flaw in this Gothic masterpiece, that would be that sadly there isn't enough time to fully enjoy each one of the diverse characters that Sangster, Fisher and the cast have created in this movie. Just like any other story with multiple film versions, it's hard to resist the temptation to pick a "best version" of "Dracula", specially when two highly celebrated films (this one and Browning's) are among those adaptations.

Personally, I prefer Browning's 1931 version over this one, however, Terence Fisher's "Dracula" is a masterpiece of Gothic horror as good as the one by Universal, and my choice is based more on personal preferences than on any superiority in terms of quality. Thanks to Fisher's masterful directing and the amazing performances of its cast, "Dracula", or "Horror of Dracula" as it's known in America, easily ranks among the best movies that came out of the legendary Hammer Film Productions, and simply one of the best horror movies ever made. 9/10

Quality horror film with Cushing and Lee at their best...

[Doylenf · 7/10 · 16 October 2003]

I used to think that the old B&W horror films from Universal in the '30s were the best of their kind--atmospheric and creepy.

But Hammer's HORROR OF Dracula makes me realize that adding Technicolor and fangs to the proceedings, with a bombastic background score to emphasize every startling moment, really makes the Dracula tale come alive.

The acting here is in the best British tradition with PETER CUSHING giving us a great Van Helsing and CHRISTOPHER LEE baring his fangs with blood-smeared lips to create the illusion of a perfect Dracula. MICHAEL GOUGH is also very effective as the man who helps Cushing when he realizes the truth about vampires.

Production values are first rate with the color photography able to create just as much dark atmosphere as the old B&W cobweb settings did. I must emphasize that the jolts become more effective thanks to a marvelous score by James Bernard.

Summing up: One of the best horror classics of its kind told in brisk style so that not a moment of screen time is wasted.

Is This The Best Dracula Film? Maybe!

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 14 March 2006]

I'm not a big fan of horror films but I was very impressed with this one, titled "Horror Of Dracula." (For some reason, it's just called "Dracula" here on the IMDb site.

This is a solid re-telling of the Dracula story with some legitimate thrills provided to the viewer along with pretty photography and sets and a tasteful lack of blood.

I'm curious how this looks and sounds on DVD. Story-wise, they might have embellished some of the action scenes and made Dracula a little more powerful. (I can't see him feeling a regular human being which he did here in the end.) Other than that, it's a well-done movie with no exaggerated characters, nice colors, no problem understanding accents....one of the better Dracula films ever made, just maybe the best. It's that good!

It also features two of the best classic 'horror" actors of all-time: Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Highly recommended, particularly for people who might be hesitant to watch a "Dracula" film. I'll think you'll like this version.

The greatest horror film ever made? 'That's a common fallacy'

[TheFinalAlias · 7/10 · 15 October 2009]

In both of their glowing reviews of this 1958 Hammer ground-breaker, Dennis Giford and Eric B. Olson cited how ironic it was that audiences once said Christopher Lee could not measure up to Bela Lugosi as Dracula, but that when Frank Langella took up the cape audiences said he could never measure up to Christopher Lee. This is a classic example of how the pupil will surpass the master, but will end up repeating his mistakes that will be noticed when a 'New Man' comes around, even if the man is initially mocked, and so the cycle continues. I'm not saying that the following versions of 'Dracula' surpassed the originals(in fact, neither were the originals unless you want to overlook a little silent masterpiece called 'Nosferatu')but I think it's time that a 'New Man' proposes a re-evaluation.

I am that man. And I come to challenge this long-standing contender to the throne. Word is that this version surpasses the 1931 version in every respect, the other word is that no, nothing can beat the original. I challenge both viewpoints.

I think it goes without saying that Terence Fisher was a better director than Tod Browning, and that technically speaking; 'Horror of Dracula'(as it is most commonly known)is a superior film. However, one can argue that the 1931 version is better because of it's importance, so let's leave things like technical proficiency and historical importance aside and weigh these films where they REALLY matter; in terms of acting, pacing and entertainment value.

The consensus is that the Browning version starts off good then becomes dull aside from some supporting performances after the initial Transylvania sequences, while the Fisher version is great from beginning to end with no weaknesses aside from budgetary constraints. Want the truth? Both have the same pacing issues. Both films start off with a bang in the scenes at the castle(this version never leaves Transylvania and takes place in a neighboring village that's apparently just a few hours ride, almost all reviews say it moves to London), but lose momentum after wards. Almost all of Fisher's version after the opening is comprised of TALKING, and since it's a longer version and more 'modern' film, it shows. The difference is that while Browning's version undeniably has a let-down of an ending, Fisher's ends with a bang. So while the thrilling parts of Fisher's version are superior, both films have much of the same drawing-room boredom and lengthy explanations of things anyone with a brain could have figured out themselves.

The other issue is the acting. Most say that Lugosi's performance is the only good one in browning's film, although some(though still not enough IMHO)credit occasionally goes to Edward Van Sloan and Dwight Frye. Truth is, Lugosi's performance hasn't aged well and Sloan & Frye dominate the proceedings. Despite being in the hands of more capable actors, Fisher's version actually has LESS chops in the acting department. Christopher Lee exudes a raw savagery and sexuality as Drac, but really, the performance gives him so little to do that any stuntman, or even another good actor in the film could have done. It's just like Lugosi's; Iconic, but not great by any means. The really great performance is Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, he's not nearly as faithful as Sloan to the book, but he dominates the entire film and sure as hell is much more glamorous and active, less a professor and more a prototype for vampire slaying superheroes like Blade and the Belmont clan. Michael Gough is much better as Arthur Holmwood(the Harker character)than David Manners, but it's mostly a thankless part when it had real potential to show a character who is a non-believer become a believer. All of the other performances are bland as can be except for a hilarious cameo by Miles Malleson as a talkative coffin-maker. So the films are narrowly matched in acting terms; an iconic but uninteresting role, some fun supporting bits but only one standout.

So the truth is, both films are more or less equals in the acting and pacing department. But which is more entertaining? Well, Fisher's version. The good scenes hit harder than Browning's does. And as dull as the talkative scenes are, a good chunk of the talking is by Peter Cushing, and he's one of those actors who is so good you'd watch him read the phone book. The incredible James Bernard score also helps, and many shots of orange leaves and cloudy night skies help build a nice Halloween atmosphere.

It's also interesting how in the Browning version, Renfield takes on Harker's role in the early scenes but Harker remains the same. Here, Harker makes the journey, but becomes a vampire like Renfield, but is mercifully killed early on, instead Mina takes on the Renfieldian role and Arthur Holmwood is the hero. An Interesting commentary on the role reversal. I also like how just as many of the scares come from Van Helsing as Dracula. When Van Helsing's hand pops up out of nowhere to scald Lucy with a crucifix it's a much more frightening moment than anything the Count does. In fact, the two most gory and violent scenes also stem from Van Helsing. Perhaps something could have been made of this, but sadly nothing was(probably religious reasons).

In short, Fisher's version is a better made, better looking and more entertaining film than Browning's, and this all earns it one more star. Otherwise, they are very evenly matched, with the gulfs in quality present, but not nearly as big as they are made out to be. Good film, but as far as it's reputation suggests? As Van Helsing tells Arthur 'That's a common fallacy'.~

Hammer sink their teeth into Dracula.

[BA_Harrison · 8/10 · 6 February 2011]

Jimmy Sangster's script for Horror of Dracula (the first of Hammer's popular vampire series) plays it fast and loose with Stoker's classic novel in almost every department, changing the nature of Jonathan Harker's visit to Castle Dracula, omitting the bloodsucker's overseas excursion to Whitby entirely, and even doing away with my favourite character from the book, bug-eating loon Renfield.

Despite this radical reworking of the source material, the film is still a highly enjoyable slice of Gothic horror, one that I found a far more satisfying movie overall than Tod Browning's 1931 version, which I felt suffered from stagy direction and a somewhat hammy central performance from Lugosi.

With director Terence Fisher's understanding of the medium of film and his cast's greater experience in front of a camera, Horror of Dracula flows much more smoothly and delivers sumptuous sets, rich colour photography, and bags of creepy atmosphere into the bargain. The film is also notable for pushing the boundaries for what was acceptable in terms of sexuality and bloodletting in UK horror, establishing the winning formula for much of Hammer's output in decades to come.

7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

Erotic, my foot

[Spleen · 6/10 · 30 September 2002]

Call me naïve, but I don't think vampires are symbolic of, stand in for, or have anything whatever to do with sex - not in Bram Stoker's novel, and not here, either. If Dracula symbolises anything (apart from simply being the strongest of all vampires, hence representing the rest, which by itself is symbolism enough), it's a corrupt aristocracy; that is, his symbolic value is political, not sexual. Certainly not sexual.

We're explicitly told that Dracula's followers are like drug addicts, who loathe their habit yet are unable to give it up. Everything we see confirms this theory (sometimes rather heavy-handedly). Is what they feel anything like lust? I doubt it. Lust, like true hunger, is something they have lost.

Take that first vampire. Is there anything sexual about her? You bet: she's proud and beautiful and she's wearing a thin white gown that reveals a vast amount of cleavage. She's certainly not the weedy-looking anorexic you'd expect a vampire to be. But she's also creepily pallid and not quite alive; the sense we get is of someone who is THEORETICALLY gorgeous and sexy (it's clear enough that Valerie Gaunt must have been a knockout in real life), but in fact, as appealing as a wax fish. It's the ABSENCE of sexual tension that makes the scene creepy. Later on we see her torn between Harker's lips (the remnants of her sexual desire) and his neck (the drug addiction that has replaced all her other desires). Nor does this or any other vampire's craving for blood in any way "represent" sex by replacing it, for there are many other things vampires either don't do or have lost interest in doing: eating, drinking, walking in sunlight, etc. Sex is just one loss among many.

If Fisher's film DID give rise to the sexual interpretation of vampires on screen, that's an unfortunate irony; it is itself innocent of this interpretive crime.

It's not at all a bad version of "Dracula"; the slight starchiness we detect at first turns out to be part of the charm, part of getting the tone and the characters right. Christopher Lee IS the definitive Dracula. If only he could have travelled through time to appear as his younger self in the in-all-other-ways-superior John Badham version of 1979, everything would have been perfect.

I'd take Browning's or Murnau's versions any day - and I am not a big fan of either of those films

[zetes · 5/10 · 12 March 2004]

Don't quite understand the popularity of this one – I found it 82 of the longest minutes of my life. It's a completely lifeless version of the Dracula story, made and performed with the energy of an episode of masterpiece theater. Peter Cushing is decent as Van Helsing, but all the other actors are terrible. I'm sorry, but I found Christopher Lee excessively wrong in this, his most celebrated part. He made absolutely no impression on me, and he doesn't compare to Max Schreck or Bela Lugosi, or even Gary Oldman, sad to say. The set design (especially Dracula's castle) and the cinematography are pretty good, but the bright colors just do not work that well in a horror film. Does this movie scare anyone? There isn't even a smidgen of eeriness in the entire movie. Then is it camp? There was nothing funny about it, either, and that, without a doubt, includes the poorly conceived comic relief bits. I seriously hope this isn't indicative of the rest of the Hammer horror series – they have been one of the major holes in my film knowledge. If they don't get better than this, it's a hole that I'm unsure I want filled. 5/10.