Le Cauchemar de Dracula

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."

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.

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 ****

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.

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.