Dracula Has Risen From The Grave

     I find it was just as true back then as it is today- you just can't keep a good monster down.  Christopher Lee was a bona fide star by this point in time, and his third outing as Count Dracula came in 1968's "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave".  Fans either love or hate this installment, as both director Terence Fisher and Peter Cushing did not return for this entry.  No worries though- Christopher Lee as Dracula is as riveting as ever.  The plot really doesn't matter at this point, we don't watch Dracula or Frankenstein movies for new plotlines- we watch them because we love the original story. But here's the jist anyway.  A monsignor is trying to rid the castle of evil after the mysterious death of a local village girl, found hanging inside the bell of the local church.  In a very dramatic scene, the monsignor and the priest of the church where the young girl was found are attempting an exorcism on Dracula's castle.  There's a monstrous thunderstorm going on, and the priest falls on some rocks.  In a bit of a stretch, some of his blood just happens to trickle down to the frozen ice below, where if you remember, Dracula was last seen frozen under the ice in the climax of "Dracula, Prince of Darkness".  The blood of the priest awakens Dracula from his frozen slumber, and he rises again from the un-dead to wreak more havoc on the village still living in fear of his evil doings.

     Lee has some especially eerie scenes in this installment, and I found myself at this point marvelling at his take on Dracula- I think in his own way (and no disrespect to Bela Lugosi here at all...) he is every bit as good as Lugosi in the role.  "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave" is quintessential Hammer, and even brings an interesting subplot of atheism into the mix.  There are some genuinely well-done scenes of creepiness and horror, one being the pursuit and stalking of the barmaid through those eerie, sun-dappled forests.  It's quite effective.  Many scenes look as if they were filmed through some sort of color filter, and the effect works.  The film also boasts a spectacular climax as Count Dracula is impaled on a cross by the sexy Barry Andrews, crying tears of blood as he dies.  I had a rollicking good time with this Hammer film.  Despite the lack of director Terence Fisher or Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave" is still mondo fun.  If there is one shining example of a Hammer film in all it's Gothic glory, then "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave" just might be the one.  Not because it's a great film, mind you. It's not as terrible as some make it out to be, but it's no masterpiece either.  But despite all the film's shortcoming, it offers some spectacular set pieces and scenes- it somehow manages to gleefully squeeze nearly all of the classic Hammer and horror cliches into one dizzying and satisfying flick.

      If you can leave your thinking cap off, and just lose yourself in the wonderfully weird world of Hammer horror, I promise you will have a great time.  Director Freddie Francis creates a great and morbid atmosphere here, and the film offers up some of the greatest Gothic horror sets I've ever seen in any Dracula film.  Seriously.  Peter Cushing is sorely missed here, and Lee could have been given more screen time (his fee was huge at this point...), but it's impossible not to enjoy this entry.  Christopher Lee is at his menacing best here- those eyes are still haunting, even today. I could watch these all day long.

Dracula, Prince Of Darkness

     Despite the huge success of the first Hammer Dracula film in 1958, it took an astonishing 8 years to convince Christopher Lee to reprise his role as the evil Count Dracula.  Fortunately for us, he did, and the 1966 Hammer classic "Dracula: Prince of Darkness", is an uneven, but nonetheless awesome Hammer film, and one of the spookiest. Taking place ten years after "Horror Of Dracula", this second installment finds Count Dracula dead and gone, and two proper British couples vacationing in the Carpathian mountains. As they find themselves abandoned by their coach, a mysterious buggy arrives with no driver, and promptly whisks them away to Castle Dracula.  Upon arriving, they chillingly find a table set for four, as if they were somehow expected.  They also find that the castle is being cared for by Dracula's creepy manservant, Klove.  He proceeds to tell the bewildered group that Dracula's wish was for the castle to remain open to visitors.  They decide to stay overnight, and that's where the story takes a rather horrific turn. Later that night, one of the men are slaughtered by Klove, and his blood is mixed with the ashes of Dracula, which resurrects him.  It's a shocking scene.

     Before we know it, Dracula is back and thirsty for blood, and soon the three remaining vacationers find themselves fighting for their lives from the recently resurrected Count.  There is something undeniably spooky about Christopher Lee as Dracula- I can't quite put my finger on what it is... but it's something for sure.  Anyway, you cannot take your eyes off him whenever he's onscreen, which I'll be honest- as much as I love this movie, Dracula could have been featured a bit more prominently in the film.  But hey, at least he's in this one, right?  Lee never utters a single word in this sequel, but he doesn't need to.  He says it all with his unnerving, bloodshot stare. Rumor has it that Lee was not happy about the dialogue written for him, so he simply refused to speak it. Whether or not it's true, it does not affect the film at all. The standard Hammer use of lavish colors and foreboding grays abound- really, the visuals are quite impressive here.

      "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" has an unsettling, evil atmosphere about it- it really is in my opinion quite a remarkable Hammer film.  If I had to come up with complaints about this installment, it's that we could have used more of Dracula himself, like I said.  We are treated to Klove, the servant, more than Dracula- and although Klove comes across as quite menacing in his own right, give us more Lee already! And sadly, Peter Cushing is nowhere to be found in this sequel, either.  The script isn't the greatest, but Terence Howard delivers such a visually rich production that it doesn't really matter. It's still a classic and fan favorite, and I'm very partial to this one.

Brides Of Dracula

    "Transylvania... land of dark forests, dread mountains, and black, unfathomed lakes.  Still the home of magic and devilry as the 19th century draws to a close.  Count Dracula, monarch of all vampires, is dead, but his disciples live on to spread the cult and corrupt the world."

     "Brides Of Dracula" is a somewhat controversial entry in the immensely popular Hammer series.  It's technically the first sequel to "Horror Of Dracula", yet Dracula himself is not in the film at all.  Don't let that keep you from watching, though, as "Brides of Dracula" is another superb entry in the Hammer series.  Although Lee is sorely missing here, director Terence Howard and the great Peter Cushing more than make up for Lee's lack of presence.

     This entry focuses on the three female vampires that usually accompany Dracula, who are carrying on his evil legacy. The film opens with an ominous and creepy tracking shot of a misty, dark lake that immediately sets the tone- and keeps the exquisite Gothic atmosphere going full force.  It's a fantastic vampire movie.

      Peter Cushing reprises his role as Van Helsing, as he returns to Transylvania to battle the evil bloodsucker Baron Meinster.  The Baron, a follower of the evil Count Dracula, unleashes a plague of vampirism on a small village.  Which turns a school for girls into a den of blood-thirsty vampires, of course. And that's when the fun begins.

      Some fans have dis-owned this sequel, being that Dracula is not in the movie, but that's quite ridiculous.  Even without the great Christopher Lee, "Brides of Dracula" is tremendous fun and a damn fine film on its own.  It's a thoroughly enjoyable slice of Hammer horror. Personally,  I could sit and watch Hammer films all day long, and even though I thought I would be bummed with the absence of Lee,  surprisingly I enjoyed the film for what it was.

Horror of Dracula

        London's Hammer Studios had just scored a smash hit with  "The Curse Of Frankenstein"in 1957, and had successfully put a new spin on Mary Shelley's classic tale.  So it only made sense to follow that one up with the studio's own re-telling of the immortal Count Dracula. "Horror Of Dracula", released in 1958, would be the first of Hammer's wonderfully atmospheric Dracula series.

     "Horror of Dracula" is another lush, Technicolor take on Stoker's novel that became the first vampire movie to incorporate blood, red eyes, and fangs, actually.  There is an unsettling, eerie vibe in pretty much all of the Hammer productions, especially the Dracula series.  Take for instance Dracula's castle- it's nightmarish, creepy, and just plain weird looking.  It's like something hallucinated in a fever dream.  The sunlight also works well in these movies.  Those sun-dappled woods for some reason really gets to me. I can't quite put my finger on what exactly it is, but something about these movies creep me out.

     Director Terence Fisher got rid of the cobwebs, howling wolves, and other Gothic trappings of  Browning's "Dracula", and completely retold the classic story. Christoper Lee makes a fantastic Dracula- with his bloodshot eyes and fangs dripping blood, he is truly startling and eerie.  I would have to say Christopher Lee's Dracula is one of the most frightening of them all- there is just something about Lee and that damn creepy castle that's downright chilling. He inherits the role from Lugosi and completely makes it his own.  And of course Peter Cushing brings to life in my opinion the most iconic Van Helsing of any Dracula film.  He simply is the character.  Critics were shocked and outraged over the explicit bloodletting and Technicolor gore, but the movie is quite tame compared with movies of today.

     Although based on Stoker's famous novel, they don't even bother staying true to it.  Director Terence Howard and writer Jimmy Sangster simply take the characters and make up their own rules along the way.  And it actually works quite well.  Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee successfully re-invented the classic monsters from Universal, and although it makes several deviations from the original novel by Bram Stoker and the Bela Lugosi film version, there is something truly riveting about this re-telling.  It's a gorgeously eerie film that looks sensational.

         "Horror of Dracula" is considered by many horror fans to be one of the greatest vampire films ever made- and it certainly is one of the most gorgeous to look at.  It's truly a lavish production.  These films are marvelous, even the bad ones- and they are strangely addictive as well.  When the mood for Hammer hits, it hits hard.  And these films are perfect to watch in October.  Or any time of the year, for that matter.  Good stuff.  Good stuff, indeed.

   

Greatest Film Dracula?

     Maybe it's a nostalgia thing, but I've been all about Count Dracula lately. I'm not sure what started the kick, but I've recently whizzed through not only the classic novel itself, but five of the most famous film versions as well. And I've honestly enjoyed every minute of it all. I've had so much fun with the old guy lately. The character of Dracula is such a rich, iconic character anyway- you can go anywhere on the planet, mention the name, and they will immediately know exactly who you mean. Kids today seem to know who he is and why he is without ever seeing a film or reading the book. It's cool, yet kinda weird. Same with Frankenstein. They are truly iconic.
     So, I was recently asked which Dracula is my all-time favorite, and honestly, that's a difficult question. I don't think I could pick a favorite. I mean, Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee were like Ronald McDonald and Big Bird to me growing up. They were icons to me at ten years old. Dracula is the most filmed character in film history, so there are certainly plenty to choose from. I chose to narrow it down to these five...


 BELA LUGOSI

     1.  Bela Lugosi made film history with his legendary performance as the suave, sophisticated, and cultured Count Dracula. His Hungarian accent and weird speech patterns set the tone for the stereotypical "vampire" we all grew up with and came to love, and made it all believable. This is probably the most well-known of the Dracula films. Lugosi's performance was so influential that it spawned an entire series of classic monster films from UNIVERSAL studios.

CHRISTOPHER LEE

     2.  Right up there with Bela Lugosi is Christopher Lee and his interpretation of the Count in the wonderfully retro Hammer films, which I love, by the way. There is something undeniably creepy about the weird Hammer films, especially the Dracula series.  I found Lee's Dracula rather menacing and scary the first time I saw it, and even remember having a couple of nightmares as a child about this particular incarnation of Dracula. HORROR OF DRACULA, released in 1958, was actually the first Dracula film to incorporate fangs, red eyes, and blood in a vampire movie, not to mention being the first Dracula to be filmed in color.
     Although greatly deviating from the original novel, many horror fans consider 1958's HORROR OF DRACULA to be the all-time best Dracula film. i wholeheartedly agree. To be fair, this outing does boast a much more brisk pace than the somewhat stodgy Universal classic, and offers lush cinematography, sets, and color. Lee would go on to star in a handful of "Dracula" films for Hammer, and while not all on the same par as the original, the first two or three are quite good. Lee also created an extremely iconic and memorable portrayal of the character.

LOUIS JORDAN

     3.  By the late 70's, the Hammer films were long gone, and it seemed those old hoary monsters were gone for the second time, as Christopher Lee had hung up his cape for good. But you can't keep a good count down, and in 1977, the BBC brought Dracula back as a mini-series. For many years considered the most faithful and accurate version of the Stoker novel, it's developed quite a fervent fan following.  And for good reason. I had never experienced it until recently (thank you Netflix...), and I'm pleased to report that I found it most excellent. I enjoyed every single minute of this version.

      Louis Jordan breathed new life into the role, and delivers a fine and eerie performance. I personally think if you're a fan of the book, this may be the version for you. This is a first-rate production, and deserves a spot in every serious Dracula collection. There are some moments of true horror in this Dracula film- some of the spookiest scenes I've ever seen in any Dracula film, for that matter. It's got a very unsettling and menacing tone running throughout the film, and some damn creepy music to boot.

                                                                 
                                         FRANK LANGELLA

     4.  Just two years after the lush BBC production of Dracula, Hollywood decided to follow suit and offer up its own version. Frank Langella inherited the role after perfecting it on Broadway first, and although he plays the role quite well, there's just something off about this version. And honestly, maybe I just need to watch it again. Because I don't remember liking it much at all when I first saw it. For those who thought Hammer's HORROR OF DRACULA strayed from the novel, wait til you get a load of this one. Transylvania isn't even in this one, for starters!  The whole thing takes place in England. Not that I'm carping about it being faithful to the book, either. Most film adaptions of books differ greatly anyway. I just found this version somewhat cheesy and I just couldn't get into it.
      Dracula was made much more romantic and sexy this time around, which turned many hardcore fans off. Langella, a great actor, does comes across as extremely classy and debonair. But he refused to wear fangs or special contact lenses- he wanted to make Dracula, um, more human in his portrayal... Frank, that's fine and all, but the character you're playing has been dead for hundreds of years and drinks human blood. NEWSFLASH- he's NOT human! Meh.

                                     GARY OLDMAN    
                                                               

     5.  Fans were beginning to think that Dracula was dead once and for all by 1990. However, Francis Ford Coppola decided it was time yet again to resurrect the count and unleashed his over-the-top BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA in '92. Gary Oldman definitely delivers one of the most unusual portrayals of the Count, and when this movie came out I loved it.  A lot.  But then, something funny happened.  I found myself in the mood for it one night recently and popped it in, and found to my disappointment, that I just couldn't get into it.  I tried to watch it again another time- and the same thing happened.  My opinion of Coppola's take on Dracula has done a complete turn-around.
     Yes, it's a gorgeous film to look at.  Sure. The special effects, the editing, the costumes, all of it is spectacular.  Coppola chose to sidestep the classic vampire trappings and go for a more artistic approach to the material.  But I just found myself bored with it all...  The words overblown and bloated came to mind. And what's with that title? A bit deceiving, if you ask me. If you're going to call a movie "BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA", why would you drastically change crucial parts of the story?  In the book, there was never any love between Dracula and Mina. "Dracula" was never meant to be a romance.  The casting seems a bit off as well- Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder? Nothing against them as actors either- but for a Dracula film?  Oldman is the best thing in the movie, and definitely makes the role his own- although Anthony Hopkins devours any bit of scenery he can get his hands on.  Even though this film is visually stunning,and there are some great scenes sprinkled throughout,  it now seems nothing more than a jumbled, tedious mess. I would have to say the score is excellent, though.

So, which Dracula is your favorite?