Dalbert Pringle
Considered quite brutal and excessively graphic in its day (1958) - "Horror of Dracula" (a Hammer Production) was really surprisingly tame by today's gore-infested standards of over-the-top, blood-saturated vampire movies.But - All the same - This particular horror film of glorified blood-lust is notable for being one of the very first vampire films to initiate the whole ultra-violent, blood-thirst trend that has continued (at full-throttle) to this very day.I think that it's interesting to note that this particular film-version of Bram Stoker's famed vampire story has Count Dracula's castle situated just outside the paranoid, little village of Klausenberg (not the expected, Transylvania).Anyway - Though this film did have its horrific moments - (Stake through the heart, anyone?) - It really wasn't anywhere near to being as sinister and savage as I was expecting it to be.
leplatypus
I watched this movie when i was 10 years old so at that time with a blank mind: so it was my 1st descent into mystery and vampires and i was totally terrified: the loud music, the night attacks, this old Gothic castle lost in a desolated country, the huge stature of Christopher Lee and his amazing dark attitude, all those things left a terrible mark in my mind, like the cross on vampires! I felt totally alone and helpless against this nightmare, like Lucy without the garlic flowers! If I'm right, i have never watched it again until tonight... Tonight was a back to back following yesterday night with Coppola's Dracula: since 1985, i have expanded my travels into supernatural (even read the novel!) and for sure, tonight watching was less painful: it was great to compare it with Coppola version as it looks like game cards being shuffled or the same story happening in another dimension! The restoration is beautiful with vivid colors (nothing to do with today 2 colors blue/orange cinematography!), the effects are stunning (without digital tools!) so like the saying, old is cool! Maybe the fame went to Lee, but Cushing play was as much essential as a force of good! This time, it was good to see an old face with a much younger Batman butler who has maybe a thing about capes and bats!
Cineanalyst
The first color-filmed Dracula (minus the tinting/toning of "Nosferatu" (1922) and a brief shot from the contemporary "The Return of Dracula" (1958)), we finally got to see the technicolor red blood in a cinematic treatment of Bram Stoker's novel—actually, this is the first instance of much if any blood at all in a Dracula movie. Another indication of the more-relaxed censorship by 1958, Hammer's "Dracula" is considerably more sexualized. Beyond introducing the familiar story to the splatter subgenre of its day, however, it's a relatively routine, if not bare-bones, adaptation story-wise, although, consequently, the plotting is punchier than most other Dracula movies.It wastes little time in jumping into the action, as Jonathan Harker is changed into a librarian imposter (yeah, I don't know why – an allusion to the film's source, perhaps) and undercover vampire hunter. The part of skeptic is played by the expanded role given to Arthur Holmwood, who's largely the Watson figure here to Van Helsing's Sherlock Holmes. Viewing this film, it's not surprising in the least that Peter Cushing, who plays Van Helsing, would play Holmes the very next year in "The Hound of the Baskervilles," nor is it surprising that he'd later play the Doctor, who also gets to show off his brilliance to stupid companions, in a couple "Doctor Who" movies. Meanwhile, Michael Gough, as Arthur, later turned to serve another batman in the 1989-1997 comic-book tetralogy. There was always an element of Holmes/Watson to "Dracula," demonstrating the connections between the horror and mystery genres, but finally having Englishmen play the parts surely stresses the similarities.Mina and Lucy, instead of switching roles this time, as they have in other adaptations, trade lovers, with Jonathan becoming Lucy's beloved and Mina marrying Arthur. Incestuously, Lucy also becomes the sister of Arthur, her former fiancé from the novel. As with most misogynist movie revisions of Stoker's tale, the two leading ladies are turned into lustful damsels-in-distress while the men play heroes. Additionally, Dr. Seward's role is reduced, and Renfield and the Texas suitor are eliminated (a Renfield type, however, appears in the third film of the series, "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" (1966)). The three female vampires from Castle Dracula are reduced to one, but this is compensated for by her displaying ample cleavage.Christopher Lee's Dracula is a relatively mute rendition; the titular role is reduced here to a supporting character to the crime- solving duo of Van Helsing and Arthur. But, with the aid of dramatic reveals involving thundering music, cutaways and close-up entrances, Lee does make an impact. His Dracula is basically just a monster, sporting fangs, blood-shot contacts and a blood-stained mouth, yet still mostly in the suave vampire tradition of Bela Lugosi. That's fine; it's appropriate for the action-packed pacing and splatter-type horror of this "Dracula." And having an ugly Count, as in the novel, would've distracted from the sexual acts of his book-connoisseur, country gent preying on the townsfolk's women. Oddly, there's also more crosses in this version, including a makeshift one (a gimmick reused ad nauseam in the sequels), which Van Helsing employs in the special-effects-laden climax, to trap the vampire between him and a "Nosferatu"-style sunbaked fate. A bit limp for a red-blooded Dracula.(Mirror Note: No mirror shots. The only mirror isn't used for a through-the-mirror shot; it's merely for Jonathan to examine his bite mark.)
Fluke_Skywalker
Plot; Dr. Abraham Van Helsing attempts to stop vampire Count Dracula's reign of terror.Coming in a lean 81 minutes, this first of Hammer's Dracula films boils the legendary Bram Stoker tale down to the absolute basics. But what it lacks in depth of story it makes up for in atmosphere. The real strength of the film, however, is its cast; particularly its principle leads. Christopher Lee's titular Dracula is only in the film for a few minutes, but he's so mesmerizing that his presence looms over the entire film. He's opposed by Peter Cushing's Dr. Van Helsing, who comes onto the screen with a singular purpose that then guides the rest of the film; kill Dracula. Tight, tense and subtly erotic, this adaptation of Dracula doesn't suck.
