Dracula il vampiro

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!

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 ****

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.

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.

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.