Le Cauchemar de Dracula

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.

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

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!

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.

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.