Rating: 
Summary: Still Chills
Review: This DVD offers the nicest looking version of HORROR I've seen. I don't really have a problem with the letterboxing but more extras would have been nice. Still a good purchase though.
Rating:
Summary: Bloody good fun
Review: I first saw this in about 1970, on BBC2, on an old black and white TV which was about 10 inches square and made everybody look like short fat cubes. But even that didn't detract from the power of this film. This Hammer horror version sticks fairly closely to Stoker's original novel, and as such is a purist's dream. By now almost everybody knows the plot - Jonathan Harker goes to Transylvannia to cement a property deal for a landed gent looking to move to England, but ends up being held hostage in Dracula's high castle with some very buxom "ladies" of the night. Meanwhile a boat comes ashore in a storm at Whitby, strangely devoid of life. And soon after that the women of the area begin to suffer a strange lassitude and a thinning of the blood. And over in the asylum, Renfield is eating flies and dreaming of the coming of his "Master" Enter Van Helsing. In this version Peter Cushing plays the archetypal vampire hunter with a grace and elegance that Sir Anthony Hopkins singularly failed to match in Coppola's version. He knows the signs of vampirism and, when Dracula makes an appearance the stage is set for one of the great confrontations in horror movie history. The chase leads an intrepid and determined band all the way back to the Count's castle, where the final climax around the gothic hall is surely one that every true horror fan will always cherish. Lee plays the Count as no one before or since. His flat demonic stare sems to ooze pure evil. The count has become a cultural icon in the past forty years, and has even been parodied and made fun of (Count Duckula anybody?) but I challenge anybody to look Lee in the eye when he's on the hunt and not feel a frisson of cold terror. Vampires have been humanised recently (and have even got a soul in Angel's case), but it shouldn't be forgotten that they are [bloodsuckers] - that's what they are, that's what they do. The high cheekbones, sex-appeal and good clothes sense are just nice-to-have after thoughts. And in Lee's case you can believe that the bloodsucking is the important part, judging by the relish he shows for the deed. And just because Buffy can stake a dozen or so without breaking sweat, it shouldn't be forgotten that the vampire is traditionally a great evil force of destruction. Lee never lets you forget it. Hammer's specialty was in a feel for the gothic, and they have been influential on many directors since (in particular, Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow" and the recent Johnny Depp vehicle "From Hell") This was an early stab at the horror movie, and they got it so right that they spent a long time trying to repeat the trick. Over the next fifteen years they made some notable horror movies, and the blood got ever redder (and the bosoms got bigger) But none of their later films matched this.....the one, the only, Count Dracula.
Rating: 
Summary: Horror of Dracula, but where are the extras????
Review: I think this is a great film and I have it on VHS. When it came out on DVD I was very excited and thought It would have a lot of extra bonus material - No such luck No commentary, no behind the scenes footage nothing that would give you a historical meaning for the making of this remake. I was very dissappointed at the lack of the bonus material. As a side note, in the ending of the film there is more footage when Dracula is destroyed I am supprised that was not put back in the film. Cuts were made and should have been put back when it was released on DVD.
Rating:
Summary: horror of dracula
Review: I think chris lee is the best looking of all draculas ever and thats without him saying a word as he did in one of the sequels,I just wish all of his films as dracula would be put on dvd since i have them all on vhs.such as prince of darkness,horror of dracula etc.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie
Review: This is one of the best vampire movies ever.
Rating:
Summary: The correct aspect ratio! Are you kidding me????
Review: Couldn't agree more with the previous reviewer from Florida who compared the paltry extras on the new "Horror of Dracula" (1958)DVD with the truckload of goodies included with the previous release of "Scars of Dracula" a latter hammer movie in the same series (1969). The only thing he didn't mention of course is the releases are from different studios which is the main reason that the two films were treated so differently. Anchor Bay released "Scars of Dracula" and its a good example of how they have been steadily improving their DVD product. I have a fine laserdisc release of Hammers "Dracula, Prince of Darkness" (1966) by Anchor Bay complete with "correct" widescreen imagery, running commentary, trailers and behind the scenes footage. It is such a complete package that I didn't feel the need to get their DVD release of the same film (at least not yet) as the laser was such a nice package. Even Anchor Bays VHS releases of Hammer films under their license I found to be above average. Hammer films have been licensed for release and distribution by secondary companies like Anchor Bay and Image as well as several major studios who own the various titles such as Twentieth Century Fox, RCA Columbia Tri-star, Metro-Golden Mayer, MCA-Universal and with the "Horror of Dracula" (unfortunately) by Warner Brothers.
To give Warner's due credit, the films colors and overall appearance are not bad and the transfer doesn't exhibit any major problems, except one. To the previous reviewer who said that "Horror of Dracula" is in the correct widescreen aspect ratio, I hope you no longer drive a car. It is obvious in the second shot of Christopher Lee, his head is cut off, that as with "The Mummy" Warners in fact has over-matted the film which was probably only a modest widescreen production to begin with. Comparing it to the VHS, virtually nothing is added to the sides and signifigant information is trimed off the top and bottom. The framing is so tight on the top that heads are cut off in several scenes. What really galls me though, considering that extras amount to a trailer and a couple of pages of text is why we didn't at least get a pan and scan along with this "widescreen" editon. Considering the short running time of the film and that its a dual-layer disc this would not have cost them much at all and they have done it for many other releases either by utilizing both layers or releasing a single layered dual-sided disc, they cost about the same. Warners has done this for many other films. Well, enjoy what there is. Thanks, CAL
Rating: 
Summary: Whose idea was it ??
Review: If there was ever a Christopher Lee film that deserved full dvd treatment, this film is surely it. Though it is great to have Lee's vampire masterstroke on dvd, its utter lack of any worthwhile extra is highly suspect.
Who decides to virtually stuff truly third-rate Christopher Lee Dracula films such as "Scars of Dracula" w/extras while at the same time taking "Horror of Dracula" and doing next to nothing at all but the transfer?? This glaring ommission is no doubt intentional, and those responsible should find other employment where cheating people isn't frowned upon. Perhaps they might enjoy cutting government funding for the arts. Those who buy dvd's for supplemental material will be sorely
dissapointed.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best Dracula films of all time
Review: I won't write a big review because most everyone has writen what I have to say about this film. It's just great and works on ever level that most all of Hammer's films would. For me Christopher Lee IS Dracula. He looks scary and evil, someone you wouldn't want to meet in the middle of the night on a dark street. I mean Bela Lugosi is great also as the Count, but his Dracula is more gentlemanly and dapper, not the animal that Christopher Lee's Dracula is. Now it's not the best Dracula film ever made ... but this is the best of all Hammer's Dracula films. I just wish that the DVD would have had some extras like it was planed to have had on it.
Rating:
Summary: Yes, the staking shots are IN!
Review: There are many lengthy, detailed, and generally fine (positive) reviews here for the movie, one of my top-ten all-time favorite horror films, and justifiably lukewarm or negative reviews of the DVD itself (nice print, virtually no extras, shoddy packaging), so I won't reiterate them at length, but endorse the general consensus. Movie: Fantastic! DVD: Eh! The main piece of crucial info I wanted to add, that I didn't see anyone else mention here, is that the brief shots of spurting blood seen during the staking of Lucy ARE intact here. They had somehow been excised from Warners' previous VHS issue of Horror of Dracula, rendering that edition null and void for hardcore fans. Whether intentionally or through dumb luck (in Warners' case just as likely) the missing footage has been reinstated, so Hammer fans can relive the moment in digital clarity! Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: A casual DVD release of Hammer's Horror Archetype
Review: After the success of Hammer's The Curse of Frankenstein in 1957, they decided to take the next logical step and remake Dracula. Released in 1958, Dracula (U.S. title The Horror of Dracula), reunited the very same cast and crew and The Curse of Frankenstein and created the formula that would carry Hammer's success throughout the 60's and 70's. Christopher Lee's portrayal of Dracula was so definitive that people pictured him in their minds when they thought of Dracula, a typecast that he was never quite able to escape. His Dracula--tall, dark, lips glossed with bright red blood--virtually revolutionized the horror film industry. To update the film, Hammer used not only eye-popping Technicolor, but added the sexual element, not clearly pictured in previous versions. This was the first vampire film where the female victims actually seemed to be enjoying the process. Peter Cushing, as Van Helsing, compared vampirism to drug addiction, and Hammer furthered the theme into realms of disease and madness in later films. The script, by Hammer's favorite screenwriter Jimmy Sangster, streamlined the key elements of the Bram Stoker novel, taking only a few liberties along the way. Probably the main change was Jonathon Harker, who knew the score from the start and arrived at Dracula's castle posing as a librarian, but intending to play the role of vampire slayer. This doesn't quite work out for him, and quickly swinging back into novel territory, he meets up with Dracula's three concubines. Horror of Dracula is widely considered to be Hammer's best Vampire film. I'm not quite sure that I agree with this (give me Captain Kronos or Twins of Evil over this one any day...) considering that they built a whole genre starting with this film and took it in some wild and previously unheard of directions. It is Hammer's most faithful adaptation from an original work, and it's notable as the beginning of something big. The DVD release has a few extras-not many and nothing I'd never seen before elsewhere. There is a notable mistake on the packaging. The woman on the back is Stephanie Beachum, in her role as Jessica Van Helsing in Hammer's Dracula: AD 1972, when they decided to bring the Count into the then "modern age." Ooops! Maybe whoever designed the case didn't actually watch the film. The release seems somewhat minimal and casual, but it's definitely worth picking up. While I'm slightly disappointed with the lack of extras, (and by the cheesy packaging blurbs and picture mistakes), I am very grateful to be able to have it on DVD!
| 
