Dracula (1958)

Best movie of this year hands down!

the audience applauded

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

RELEASED IN 1958 and directed by Terence Fisher, "Horror of Dracula" chronicles events when Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) goes to Dracula's castle under the pretense of a librarian. Later, the Prince of Darkness travels to Karlstadt, Germany, to prey on Harker's fiancée, Lucy (Carol Marsh), and her relatives, Arthur & Mina (Michael Gough & Melissa Stribling). Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing), a student of vampirism and a friend of Harker's, shows up to try to put an end to the Count's reign of terror. Hammer Studios did nine Dracula films from 1958 to 1974: Horror of Dracula (1958); The Brides of Dracula (1960); Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966); Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968); Taste the Blood of Dracula (1969); Scars of Dracula (1970); Dracula AD 1972 (1972); The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973); and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974. Christopher played the Count in every one of these except "The Brides of Dracula" and "The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires." Hammer fans typically praise this first film in the series, Lee's first gig as Dracula, and it is a solid entry with the typical Hammer highlights: Lush Gothic ambiance, bright colors, Lee & Cushing and bodacious women. Lee's diabolical interpretation of the Count is another highpoint, not to mention one of the most stunning horror scores by James Bernard. Unfortunately, the abridged story loosely based on Stoker's novel is somehow unsatisfactory and there are too many 50's limitations IMHO.Here's one curious abbreviation: In the book the story starts in Transylvania, switches to England with Dracula voyaging to London, but ends up back in Transylvania for the climax. Coppola's 1992 film adhered to this European globetrotting, but Hammer decided to simplify the geography where travel time is condensed to something akin to a European theme park rather than reality. The tale starts outside of Klausenburg, the capital of Transylvania in Central Romania at the time, with Drac's castle nearby, then switches to Karlstadt, in South-Central Germany, which is roughly 750 miles from Klausenburg in reality, yet a mere carriage drive away in this film, perhaps 20 miles.THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 22 minutes and was shot entirely in Bray, Berkshire, England. WRITERS: Jimmy Sangster (screenplay) and Bram Stoker (novel). GRADE: B-

One more movie about Count Dracula. This time it is not remake of some of its predecessors, nor the original story inspired by Dracula. This one is direct, although not literal, adaptation of cult classic by Bram Stoker. Authors gave their best to turn this cult novel into unexciting, even boring, movie. I'm confused by the choice of actresses. If they couldn't find three girls that will be convincing in their roles, they could at least find three with breathtaking looks. Those they took are neither. First one is ugly and other two, although much better looking, are very unconvincing. Even legendary Christopher Lee is totally lame in role of Dracula, especially compared to Bela Lugosi. This is probably the worst Dracula movie ever to date. I'm watching them chronologically, so I can not speak about those which came after just yet. The only good things about this movie are Peter Cushing and scene of Dracula's death, which is fascinating for its time.4,5/10

I guess I'm not the biggest Dracula fan out there, but I still appreciate all the many movie versions out there. This is one of my favorites, although it is hard to tell if I liked this more than the classic Bela Lugosi version. I guess my problem with that was that it was too anti-climatic. This, on the other hand, has a lot more action, but it unfortunately doesn't have nearly as much Dracula. Off the top of my head, I guess I'd probably say this version is better. It's mostly because of the side characters.I was seriously not expecting Dracula's bride to die so soon. I wasn't expecting her to try to attack Jonathan Parker either. I was confused because Van Helsing was advertised as being featured prominently, but it turns out Parker was just a decoy protagonist. Peter Cushing does a great job and I really do love the atmosphere of this movie. About half of it is devoted to a hunt for Dracula. I am sad that Christopher Lee wasn't on screen more! It still creates a powerful story with intelligent conversations and a good set up with the mythology of such a classic character. ***1/2

I've been meaning to watch this film for quite some time, and after Christopher Lee's tragic death, I knew that I had to finally sit down and watch it this October. And, so, today I did watch it, and it was pretty great.In fact, one of my biggest complaints about the film was how little Christopher Lee was actually in the movie. Whenever he's there, its just absolute horror cinema magic. But that isn't to say that when he isn't there the movie is bad or uninteresting. It stays pretty interesting throughout, but, because so much is going on in the movie, it does feel a bit longer than 80 minutes.Another complaint I have is the absence of Renfield. Renfield is usually the best character in a Dracula movie, besides Dracula! In both the Bela Lugosi version and the Werner Herzog film "Nosferatu, the Vampyre", Renfield is a very comic, fun, and, overall, amazing character!But, thats really all of the complaints I have for this one, because, its actually a really awesome movie! And, for the 50s, its pretty hardcore. Of course it is tame now, but for the 50s there's quite a bit of violence and even a bit of blood!The performance by Peter Cushing, playing Van Helsing, is pretty good to, and it is always cool to see Peter Chushing in a film other than the original "Star Wars".Overall, if you're a big fan of classic horror, you've probably already have seen this, and, if you haven't, you really should!