Rating: 
Summary: Why did it have to be Warner?
Review: I would be as excited as everyone else about this DVD release if it was being released by Anchor Bay or Image. However, this DVD is being issued by Warner, the Kings of Incompetence and Artistic Insensitivity. I first saw Horror of Dracula back in the early 90s. I had rented it on VHS, and was blown away by it like everybody else. I instantly became a Hammer fan, even though up to that point I generally only watched American horror films. Some time later, I received the VHS tape as a Christmas gift from my brother. Although the box's packaging was the same as the box in the rental store, there was a difference between the two tapes: when I reached the staking-of-Lucy scene, I realized footage was missing. I rushed to the rental store and re-rented the copy previously mentioned. And I saw what the problem was after comparing the scenes on the two tapes side-by-side: this copy my brother had purchased was missing two or three (I think two) frames of blood in the staking sequence. I also noticed at this point that the purchased tape had a more recent copyright year (1989) for "Packaging Artwork, Design & Summary." The box in the rental store said (I think) 1985. Do you see what happened? Warner had apparently re-issued the tape--without changing the packaging--with one minor yet monumental difference: THIS TIME THEY USED A PRINT OF THE FILM THAT CONTAINED A CENSORED VERSION OF THE STAKING SCENE. I remember reading that Britain had to trim some of the violence from a number of Hammer films in the late 50s and 60s in order for the films to receive certification. Warner had apparently used the British print this time around. What incompetence!! Even television and cable channels show the proper version. To add insult to injury (and I promise I'll wrap this up soon), Warner's DVD of The Mummy shows the U.S. theatrical matted version. Fisher probably did not film that movie to be matted: it looks better viewed full-frame, with more picture on top and bottom. On top of this, the quality of the sound is inexcusably inferior to the videotape. This better not happen with Dracula! Add these things to the bonehead fiasco over the Kubrick DVDs and the indefensible marring of Eyes Wide Shut, and one can only wonder how these Philistines can even call themselves a film studio. I have a very bad feeling about this...
Rating:
Summary: The Definitive Christopher Lee Dracula film!
Review: Whenever Dracula in film is discussed, Bela Lugosi's name is mentioned first (rightly, as he first defined the character), but for three generations of viewers, Christopher Lee has been the definitive Count, and this film marked his debut, and best performance! The story is the basic legend; the vampire comes to England and wreaks havoc on two families, until his final confrontation with Van Helsing (Peter Cushing, in one of his greatest Hammer Films portrayals). The cat-and-mouse game between the two leads is brilliant, as Cushing spends most of the film one step behind Lee, trying to repair the damage while pursuing the Prince of Darkness. Lee, himself, is spectacular, his blood-glazed eyes defiant, his lust of flesh and blood insatiable! The film has liberal quantities of 1950's sex and titillation, and truly paved the way for the Vampire film of today. Worth noting is the supporting cast of Hammer Film regulars, particularly Michael Gough (who would achieve fame years later as 'Alfred' in the 'Batman' films), as Arthur Holmwood, who incredulously watches his wife become one of the Undead, and spouts dialogue like "How could you SUGGEST such a thing??!!" when Van Helsing tells him a stake through the heart is the only option left for her. Campy, yes, but CLASSIC camp! This is one DVD that should be an essential for any Lee, Cushing, or Hammer Film fan, and it is a cause for celebration that it has finally been released in this format. Don't miss it!
Rating:
Summary: Hammer Films Original "Dracula"
Review: "The Horror of Dracula" is one of the most faithful adaptations of Brahm Stoker's original novel. Starring Christopher Lee as Dracula, this film tapped the incredible sensuality of the vampire. The effects are naturally not nearly as good as more modern films but if you want to see a film that really follows both the story and intent of the original novel this is the version of "Dracula" to choose. It was a natural predecessor to the 1979 version of he film that starred Frank Langella, which took the mystery and sensuality of Dracula even further. This film was a bold early step in the direction of the course that vampire films would naturally follow and is still one of the best. It's a must have for any true fan of vampire films.
Rating:
Summary: HORROR OF DRACULA
Review: THIS SURPASSES ANY OF THE DRACULA FILMS OUT THERE TODAY AND WITH CHRISTOPHER LEE AS THE COUNT MAKES IT EVEN BETTER.I HAVE WAITED A LONG TIME FOR THIS TO COME OUT ON DVD BECAUSE WARNER BROTHERS HAS BEEN HOLDING A LOT OF THE HAMMER FILMS IN THE VAULT FOR RELEASE AMONG MANY OTHER FILMS IN THE HORROR FILM GENRE.I GIVE THIS A FIVE STAR RATING BECAUSE IT IS AN AWESOME FILM.
Rating: 
Summary: The Quintessential DRACULA!
Review: HORROR OF DRACULA is essential viewing for horror and vampire fans (and now finally on DVD!). Christopher Lee remains the ultimate Dracula. He subtly combines single-minded, unstoppable evil with gentlemanly grace and charisma; the perfect mask of civility over a raging, blood-spattered ghoul. Despite its many faults, the film is a strong contender for the greatest cinematic adaption of Bram Stoker's novel, solely because of the brilliant performances of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.
The film begins, oddly enough, in broad daylight, as we look up on Dracula's castle. It's a far cry from the one in most or our imaginations. This is no gloomy, mist-enshrouded, crumbling edifice of evil, but almost a Victorian mansion set in what looks to be the Swiss Alps. The camera pans past it down towards a crypt, in which lies Dracula's coffin. As the horror-movie music swells, bright red blood splashes on the inscription that reads "Dracula"--introducing horror fans to the new world of gorgeous Technicolor. There are huge gaping plot holes in the film, but the film moves briskly and with an intensity other horror films of the era couldn't muster. The screenplay by Jimmy Sangster (who wrote a good portion of the Hammer films) has little plot contrivances to allow for the various attacks Dracula makes. It all seems to be a weird jumble of Stoker's novel, the original 1931 play adaption, and British production codes and values. At one point Holmwood (Michael Gough) and Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) are discussing vampirism, and Holmwood says, "I thought vampires could turn into bats or wolves." Van Helsing corrects him: "No, that's a common fallacy." What?! Why? It's never explained, but I think I can guess why--they couldn't fit that type of thing into the budget! It's also impossible to tell just where the story takes place--Transylvania is never named, nor is London. Odd, that, but not too crushing to the events at hand. I've seen this film several times as an adult and I don't think I ever thought about much of this until I decided to write about it. The acting is very good, straightforward and convincing. Had it been less so these Hammer films would not have achieved classic status. Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee solidified their careers here (a year after CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN) and they are in top form, a perfect battle between good and evil. Cushing is full-bore, his wiry frame radiating intense concern and intellectual pride. Michael Gough as Holmwood does a credible job as the Victorian gentleman caught up in this inconceivable horror, but he doesn't at all come off as ineffectual, wimpy or bumbling. Melissa Stribling as Mina is, at first, a prim, yet intelligent, woman, but after her encounters with Dracula she subtly changes--imperceptible to the men, but to the audience, well... we know there's gonna be trouble. Lee as Dracula is perfect, all implacable stillness one moment and then animal swiftness the next. His presence is more commanding and threatening than Lugosi's, more fully masculine and powerful. Like the character in the novel, he spends most of his time off-screen--but those few moments he is on screen are marvelous, scary and effective. The sudden, shocking close-up on his face, blood dripping from his fangs, his eyes red-rimmed, must have sent '50s audiences into paroxysms of fear. When he makes his move on Mina it is first with loving kisses upon her face--as if he remembers something of what human love was once like. Lee understood the depth of this usually one-dimensional character, and reveals it with economy and style. The climax of the movie is fantastic, thrilling and quick-moving. Lee and Cushing get down to some hand-to-hand combat (note to self: if ever being strangled, play dead, then when strangler is least expecting, attack!) while Gough rescues the soon-to-be-undead Stribling. The effects of Dracula crumbling away as the sunlight burns his flesh--oops, did I give that away?--are kind of funny now, but I'm sure at the time everyone was pretty grossed out. Order is restored, the Victorian status quo resumed... until DRACULA, PRINCE OF DARKNESS seven years later.
Rating:
Summary: HORROR OF DRACULA
Review: It may come as a shock to many of today's moviegoers that the aristocratic Count Dooku in Attack of the Clones is not the first role in which veteran actor Christopher Lee has been called upon to play a dark clad, all but invincible emissary of evil. Indeed, Lee became a star playing yet another wicked count: Dracula. Produced by the now-legendary Hammer Films in 1957 as a follow-up to their successful Curse of Frankenstein shocker, Horror of Dracula was the first major effort to revive the undead Count since Bela Lugosi's immortal performance. Filmed in brilliant blood-red color on dreamy, gothic sets of the imagination, Horror of Dracula gave horror fans a more erotic, exciting version of Bram Stoker's tale than any Universal had produced. For the record, Horror of Dracula does not adhere to the source novel very closely; there has never been a faithful adaptation of Stoker's novel, and it says something that even though Christopher Lee would play Dracula over and over, he always lamented that he never really got to perform the book. Even so, Horror of Dracula is an entertaining gothic nightmare that holds up against the best vampire films of today, and if it is not faithful to the letter of Stoker's book, it is surely faithful to its spirit. There are many reasons why this film works, not the least of them being Lee himself. Lee's Dracula is a fiery-eyed, cold-hearted devil at once alluring and malevolent, mysterious but charming, reserved yet explosive--dead but not-dead. But, as hinted at in Stoker's book, Lee's Dracula can know love, albeit of an obscene sort. Indeed, in this movie Dracula battens upon Jonathan Harker's fiance not out of random hunger, but revenge--for Harker has killed Dracula's own vampire bride, and Dracula will have Harker's woman in her place. Is Lee's performance better than Lugosi's? Probably not, but it is an original, perfectly valid interpretation in its own right, and one Lee certainly carries off splendidly. From Lee's first shadow-veiled appearance as the Count to the final showdown with vampire hunter Van Helsing, the viewer is spellbound. As the aformentioned Dr. Van Helsing, the great Peter Cushing is just as vital to the picture as cohort Lee. Cushing's Van Helsing may not be Stoker's vision of the character, but he is nonetheless an engaging, powerful presence that is Dracula's one worthy foe. Some find Cushing's Van Helsing cold and unsympathetic, but this view misses the point. Cushing is here not at all cold; indeed, he goes to great pains to help Dracula's victims and grieves when one of them falls. But he knows the evil he is up against, and will stop at nothing to rid the world of it once and for all. Far from being cold, Cushing is a crusader inflamed with the desire to defeat Dracula at any cost. In any event, Cushing handles the role flawlessly and, true to Stoker or not, makes it his own. The rest of the excellent cast and crew adds immeasurably to the production. Hammer became famous for its clique of talented, thoroughly professional actors and its voluptuous, alluring actresses, and those thespian assets are strongly displayed in Horror of Dracula. Director Terrence Fisher orchestrates the mystery and horror of this gothic fairy tale with a magic wand, and Jimmy Sangster's script is a masterpiece of horror movie literature. From the intimidating opening shots of Dracula's castle and blood-spattered tomb, to the Count's irresistible seduction of young Lucy, through the thrilling cat & mouse game of wits between Dracula and Van Helsing to its breathtaking climax, Horror of Dracula is a classy gothic fantasy unlike any other version of Stoker's classic. Almost certainly the most charismatic and exciting of all Dracula films, Horror of Dracula will entertain and thrill movie lovers as long as here are horror movies. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Lee as Dracula
Review: Jonathan Harker travels to see Dracula (assumed to be in Transylvania), knowing he is a vampire; Jonathan has come to destroy him. Dracula gets Jonathan first and then claims Mina and Miss Lucy (Jonathan fiancée) as his. Dr. Van Helsing (played by Peter Cushing) appears; he was a friend of Jonathan's, and an expert in vampirisms. The rest of the movie we see Van Helsing hunting down Dracula and in the end we see Dracula reduced to dust. It is interesting to note that Christopher Lee returns to his Dracula role in Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1965) and is revived from that dust. Christopher Lee refused to play Dracula for almost 10 years, because he was afraid of being stereotyped. In this movie, we probably see one of the most famous duos in horror film history. I am a huge fan of both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee and have enjoyed all of their movies, especially the old Universal remakes (e.g., Horror of Dracula (1958), The Curse of Frankenstein (1958), The Mummy (1959)).
Rating:
Summary: HAMMER'S "DRACULA" HITS NAIL ON THE COFFIN!
Review: "Horror of Dracula" blew away British and American audiences in 1958. Gone were the black and white images of Bela Lugosi slowly delivering dialogue in cobweb infested corridors. Instead, Hammer's Count was elegant, handsome, sensual, fast, ferocious and in Technicolor! Peter Cushing as Van Helsing was a perfect match for Christopher Lee's incomparable Count Dracula. Although his part was much more limited than in later Hammer vampire films, Lee's presence is felt in every frame. Lugosi may be the most famous Count Dracula, but Lee's vampire has a masculinity and sensuality that has never been surpassed (Frank Langella came close in the 1979 version with Laurence Olivier). "Horror of Dracula" deserves full DVD treatment with a widescreen print and plenty of extras. This film, on a double bill with Hammer's 1957 "Curse of Frankenstein" would be the most perfect Hammer DVD to date.
Rating:
Summary: ONE OF HAMMER FILMS BEST!
Review: This is one of the best Dracula films ever created.Being one of the best Hammer Films,this movie offers gore,horror and beautiful young vixens in this horror thriller.
Also adding to the horror is Christopher Lee who plays the king of all vampires,Count Dracula.And we can't forget Van Helsing played by Peter Cushing,who also makes the movie work.Without these two characters this movie would stink! This is a movie that will please horror fans,Dracula fans or you just want a good scream. THIS FILM IS WORTH WATCHING AND ALSO WORTH THE MONEY!
Rating:
Summary: One of the best Hammer AND overall Dracula films
Review: First, like pretty much any "adaptation" of Bram Stoker's novel to the screen, this film has little to do with Stoker's "Dracula" novel. It DOES have more in common with it than either the famous Bela Lugosi version or the abomniable, offensively titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula" with Gary Oldman. Others have already mentioned that this film is a piece of cinematic history... and 45 years after its release, it remains an exciting item to pop in the VCR when you're looking for a chlling, adventuresome diversion. "The Horror of Dracula" starts out looking like a straight adaptation, but ten minutes in, it takes a hard left when its revealed that Jonathan Harker has come to Castle Dracula not as a hapless victim but as an agent of vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing and that Harker is fully aware of Dracula's true nature. But it all works, because when Van Helsing appears on screen (played by the late, great Peter Cushing), we get a different interperation of him than offered in Stoker's novel, and a different spin on vampirism as well. The film then proceeds to present Dracula claiming Mina and Lucy as victims, like in the novel, but for a different reason--revenge for Harker and Van Helsing being pains in the rear. In the end, the Count is brought low by his own schemes AND a rather neat little bit of action by Cushing/Van Helsing. What is particularly remarkable about this film is that, although it strays far from Stoker's story, Christopher Lee's portrayal of Dracula (as well as the way he is handled in the script) is far truer to Stoker and the overall tone of the novel than any other version. He's not the incongriously eveningwear-sporting-but-decaying-castle-dwelling Lugosi, nor is he the pathetic whiner from Oldman's version... no, the Lee Dracula is a blood-thirsty monster who preys on the life and emotions of the living. He is a strange and alien fearsome outsider, just as Stoker portrayed.
|
