Could it be... Lee? V.0 2

First off, I want to say this- I really have no idea how to explain my feelings about this movie. Horrorotica director extraordinaire Jesus Franco's take on Dracula starts off as a very respectable take on Stoker's prose only to descend into what can only be described as whacky madness. I... I guess it was entertaining, but this film is not without a massive dose of WTF-ery as the run time clocked forward.

Jesus Franco is a director who I enjoy generally, and he has made some of my favourite films, all of them with a heady note of sexuality. There are some people out there who would argue that his films are glorified soft porn, and to an extent that could be true, but softcore porn doesn't come (Freudian slip, sorry) with fascinating characters, gorgeous camera work, eclectic soundtrack (I love the almost insectile nature of the music his chooses), and intense visuals all the while being part of a story. Franco's films are usually embued with a distinct sense of European erotica with a major sensation of the disturbed underneath. His view of sex isn't idealised, but it should be no means be taken as the real. His 'Eugenie De Sade' and 'Eugenie... the Story of Her Journey Into Perversion' are the best examples of Franco mixing sex with classic literature all the while retaining a distinct sense of class and sensibility. Or at least, that's how I view his work. That being said, when I watched 'Count Dracula' I was a little taken aback about how mainly chaste the film was. Now, given this is Franco trying to be genuine, I wasn't expecting his token psychedelic version of sexuality, but I almost felt as if Franco wasn't the right person to direct this picture, at least for the first hour or so. Franco plays it almost down the middle, trying to tell the story as it happened- young green-thumb solicitor Jonathan Harker sets out to meet with Dracula (Christopher Lee- AGAIN! The man could play Dracula for a free sandwich as long as it was a tasty one), just as it was written in the novel, complete with featured dialogue. However, as soon as Dracula hits London, that is where Franco starts to lose his load. It's not that he drops the magic completely, but the transition from traditional story-telling to dreamy and whacked out hits you like a freight train. I guess you could attribute this change of pace to Dracula's supernatural ways and his means of influence, but it still feels incredibly out of place. On top of that, despite this craziness, Franco's token sexuality is mysteriously absent. I'm not criticizing the movie because it doesn't have sex (I'm not a male aged from 12 to... 150) but if Franco wanted to make his take on the story, it would have been far suitable if he did it in the style he was comfortable with rather than resorting to pretense.

That being said, that's not to say it is without it's merits. Aside from Franco's token visual splendors and trippy soundtrack, you have Christopher Lee playing a far more closer to the book version of Dracula than Count RapeFace. When you first see him, he is an old man, with a long iron-coloured beard and a deeply forboding presence. He doesn't leap around, snarling and behaving like an animal like Lee's alternate Dracula did. Here, he retains a lot of the novel Dracula's characterization and he comes off like a champion. Lee himself said he was proud to have taken part in the movie because he felt that Franco didn't cheapen the character the way Hammer in the later years had and that pride comes through.

                                                                              Hi.

Another actor that shines is the gale force that is Klaus Kinski as Renfield. Rather than go all out in his insanity, Kinski's Renfield comes off as a little quieter and despite those Manson Lamp Eyes of his, his rendition of everybody's favourite lunatic comes off as a little more honest to the original character. A quick aside here, nine years later, Kinski would be playing a very different version of Dracula in Werner Herzog's remake/retooling of 'Nosferatu'. 

                                                       Kinski before morning coffee.

I would also be foolish if I did not mention the illuminating Soledad Miranda as Lucy. Soledad Miranda was not a conventional classic beauty by anybody's standards, but she had a mystifying aura about her that far surpassed her looks. She was an exotic and intriguing woman with a suitably Gothic look, much like Barbara Steele, who could say so much with her eyes in every role she did prior to her sudden and tragic death. Here she embues Lucy with a sense of fragility as well as ethereal wonder. Her sequences with Lee are nothing short of hypnotizing and I think her Lucy was far more compelling than Maria Rohm's Mina in terms of performance.

                                                                        Luminous.

Okay, so what happened that made me ultimately less enjoy this movie? Aside from my previous statements with regards to Franco's preferred method of film making and some throwaway character casting, there are some scenes that really have no right to be there. Case in point- in one scene that is meant to be frightening, the stuffed heads of animal game comes alive in a room then menaces Dracula's pursuers complete with some ADD camera work. Now, what movie does that remind you of?

Yep, that's the one.

Look, I have nothing against trying to go outside the norm, but in saying that, the moment Franco whipped that out of his bent top hat I was shaking my head, grinning. Not with the sheer absurdity of the sequence but at it. What was Franco smoking when he came up with that? Most ironic thing is though is that 'Count Dracula' was made a good decade or so before 'Evil Dead II'. Oh, Franco, what were you thinking-o.
Also, the pacing. This film does have a brief run time all things considered, but sometimes, and this isn't the only movie guilty of this, Franco doesn't quite know when to quit-o. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time focusing on one frame even when there really isn't a lot happening and when the action does happen, it gets drawn out to an almost tenuous length at times that you just want Monty Python to pop up and say "Get on with it.".

Done and dusted, Franco's Count Dracula genuinely tries to be respectable to the source, and that I can very much appreciate, but it's greatest foil is the fact the film maker isn't being true to his values. If he had wanted to make his very own spin of Dracula complete with psychosexuality, I would have been all for it, because Franco's mastery lay within that arena. I wouldn't have minded seeing a gorgeous European stud style Dracula charm his way under many a babealicious underskirt as long as Franco had did it his way. Then again, if I wanted to see that, I could just imagine Hugh Jackman crawling up under my sheets, his hands removing my bodice as I reach for his... oops, sorry. Overshare?

                     Yeah, sorry, Hugh Jackman isn't European enough. How about Raoul Bova?


Trivia:  During filming, Lee and the actor who played Van Helsing, Herbert Lom, did not meet even though their characters shared several scenes. I am a little confounded why, because this confused both actors as well- for some reason Franco made a conscious decision to have both men film their scenes on different days and never the twain did meet. 

End Of An Era

You will either find 'The Satanic Rites of Dracula' extremely awesome or extremely idiotic simply because of how... inventive it is. Rather of Dracula simply being content to hunt down quivering virgins (yeah, tough luck of that happening in the 70's), the Count's ambitions actually soar a lot higher than you'd expect. Dracula wants to destroy the world. Count Dracula has had it with the world he lives in as well as his quasi-immortality. Rather than skip into the sunlight, he wants to not just take himself out, but everybody else, seeing it ultimately as a mercy... or that's what I gathered from such a bombastic scheme. And rather than using vampirism to do it, he uses something a lot closer to home- the pestilence. Holy shit. Dracula isn't just pissed in this one- he's completely certifiable.

                                                                  Say whaaaaaaaa?

This being the final installment of the Lee Dracula canon, it's only predictable that all involved in the production wanted to go out with a bang, and depending on how you took my above description, you will either come freely or go safely (get it?). Given the sour taste Dracula AD left in my mouth, I was only too happy to forget that film's crap by going into this one with some shred of optimism. Despite being a direct sequel to AD, it mercifully has little to do with the previous film, despite being set in the same time period and using the same central characters (Dracula, Lorrimer Van Helsing and his granddaughter Jessica). What we have here is a bizzare combination of science fiction, horror and suspense thriller, to say it's boring would be untrue. Hammer is actually going for something new here, and despite how too little, too late this final entry was, I must say it was a lot of fun to watch. I can appreciate how you may feel this movie will be an utter waste of your time just going by the premise alone, but in order to see what I see, you will have to watch it for yourself, then decide.

                                                 Take your time, Dracula's getting lucky.

While it all starts simply enough, it's not long before we are sucked into Dracula's version of the Final Solution. Undertaking another identity, he works behind the scenes like a malicious Wizard of Oz, leading the Van Helsings and a policeman caught up in the thick of it, into a frantic race against time to not only put an end to a wave of Satanic cult killings, but also to prevent Dracula from embarking on his global murder/suicide. It almost plays out like a supernatural Tom Clancy/John La Carre novel, using spy-work, infiltration, detective work and a huge dose of paranoia to show that the world is bound for imminent apocalypse. To be perfectly frank, it's not as action-packed as it sounds, it's actually more about exposition and theories, but before you shrink away, Peter Cushing is the undisputed star of this movie. He carries all of it and it is his presence and his performance that keeps you interested. Yes, it sounds ridiculous and a little tedious judging from all the talking that takes place, but by God, it was quite a return to form for Lee's Dracula series that I thought it was almost brilliant. It's not a perfect film and it truly does jump the shark, but this wild new spin makes you sit up and take notice. I must say, it really was an end of an era because this was the last time Lee and Cushing appeared in their signature roles, and their curtain calls are certainly worthy. Dracula wins back the menace he had in the earlier films, and Van Helsing is truly consumed by his destiny to destroy Dracula once and for all. It's almost like Michael Meyers and Doctor Loomis from 'Halloween', only... more awesome. There, I said it.

                                                                    To the bitter end...


In saying that, what you truly can't ignore is that it was as if this film was written first, plot wise, with Dracula being added as an after thought. It's to be expected at this point, so whatever gripe you may have with this movie can't be measured on that alone. However, rather than giving us another stupid regeneration sequence, he just shows up and we don't see him again until the last 20 minutes of the picture. Not necessarily a bad thing considering Hammer finally stepped out of the kiddy pool by something different, but given this was the final Dracula film Lee would appear in, and given his plan is pretty much the foundation of the movie, one would think that he would have been given more screentime. In saying that however, Lee didn't show up a whole lot in Horror of Dracula, a good move considering Dracula was meant to be an elusive creature. In SROD, he doesn't really make an appearance as Dracula himself, but rather, he assumes a false identity (though it's still evidently Lee) in order to set Lorrimer and Jessica Van Helsing off his trail. It's a bit of a confusing move, but in contrast to the tomfoolery that occurred in AD, it's an understandable move, if not a forgiven one.
I also must say that Joanna Lumely makes for a far better Jessica Van Helsing than her younger predecessor Stephanie Beachum- the character has her grandfather's determination and intelligence, plus the attributes of a liberated woman of the era. A welcome change from the female victims that littered the films previously.

Ultimately, this is a much inferior film considering the brilliance of the earlier installments, but as a matter of perspective, it made an admirable effort to clean up the dog spew that AD hurled up on our shoes. It's likely that you will laugh this movie into the ground, but if you are in a charitable mood, this may be a very, very fun and inventive film, despite how simply outrageous it all is. Is it a worthy ending? No. Is it better than what it should have been? Definitely.

"Oh, the PAIN, the PAIN!"

The quote so famously bellowed by Doctor Smith from Lost In Space in the title should give enough indication that sitting through this movie without a braced mind is enough to give any self-respecting film lover a migraine. What could have been a novel concept was quickly transformed into a lame horse waiting to be put out of it's misery when one watches this movie, I mean, where do I begin?

                                                           I'm tempted, Drac, I really am.

First, every single cliche that has been used in all of the Hammer Horror films is used in this movie, the only difference being that it's set in the groovy 70's. I have no problem separating the stupid from the charming, but seriously, this film is ridiculous. Even if you viewed it as a joke, it falls flat on it's face like a drunken starlet stumbling out of a limousine without any knickers on- you watch and snicker, but it's at the starlet, not along with them. Dare I say, even Lee starts to come off as a major mook in this picture (it pains me to say that by the way) . The storyline is predictable, but here is one of the most ridiculous aspects of the film makes it'self apparent- it's not meant to be a canon sequel to the previous Dracula films. Okay, we could have worked with this wonderfully if this film wasn't so saturated in pungent cheese. Now, cheese is fun as we all know, but this film makes an explicit point to remind you that this is the 70's every step of the way. Kaleidoscopic fashions, token funky music (which at times sounds like a porno of all things) and every single cast member sprinkling their lines with verbal discourse exclusive to the time period. Think PJ Soles from Halloween constantly spurting 'Totally' and you have a general idea of these young hipster's vocabulary.

                             You know you're in trouble if THIS kinda thing doesn't save the movie.

But that aside, what really confuses you is that even though this film says it's meant to be it's own entity, it still has a (ri-DONK-ulous) Dracula resurrection sequence which blatantly references Dracula's destruction in the previous film. If they really wanted to start anew, why would they feel the need to show this? Couldn't they have just said that Dracula was, I dunno, in a deep sleep or something? It boggles the mind, and not in a David Lynch way.
To me, the only true saving grace of this movie is the return of Peter Cushing (who actually plays two ancestors of Van Helsing, Lawrence and Lorrimer) to the franchise. I just want to bring this up because I need to get this off my chest- does anybody else feel like their intelligence is being insulted whenever they cast the same actor to play various relatives? I mean, it's obvious people wanted to see Cushing as a Van Helsing again, who wouldn't, but come on, surely they could have chosen another actor to assume that character? I doubt their identity would be lost on viewers.

But even the comforting presence of Van Helsing isn't enough to keep you from tearing your hair out because of the young, hipster cast. Stephanie Beachum, who plays Jessica Van Helsing (I guess Peter Cushing couldn't make a convincing woman) is almost a non-issue even though she is meant to be the heir of the Van Helsing legacy. It's like she's there solely to be the means Dracula uses to have his vengence on the Van Helsing family. The character would return in the last Dracula film played by Boomkat Favourite Joanna Lumley, but she is a completely different person.
Then there's the character of Johnny Alucard. Ah, Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, JOHNNY. If there was ever a more obnoxious character, they would have to work pretty hard to overbear Johnny. He's meant to be this charismatic figure who can get all the babes and make everybody do as he says, but man... what a sad, sorry little dick. This guy is meant to be Dracula's regent (I prefer the term 'butt boy' myself) and yet he's got the attitude of a mentally inept 17 year old. Plus his wardrobe SUCKS.

                                                                            Groovy.


While films of this nature have the capacity to be charming, there really is little joy and good humour to be had watching this movie, even if you are taking it lightly. In the end, you really do feel sorry for Lee the actor rather than Dracula. I don't know how Lee made it through filming because his rendition of the Count this time take a third wheel role behind Johnny Alucard. I have nothing against having the big guy as a background ominpotent figure, but given how charmless and idiotic Johnny Alucard is, to think Dracula put this guy in charge makes you question Dracula's credibility as the Big Bad.

Speaking of Lee, what a waste. All he does is stand around and look menacing and speaks in his deep barritone some truly reeking dialogue that almost rivals the shit he had to say in Lucas's Star Wars prequels. Gone is the animalistic and sexual Count Dracula, in his place is something a little more animated than a cardboard cut-out. I realise Lee was getting older by this point, but Dracula's sexually perverse nature it's merely limited to how he looks- it's all in what he does, and he does absolutely nothing here that makes you want to lock up your mothers, daughters and wives. Not Lee's fault in particular and with what little he does have he manages to use, but unfortunately, he just doesn't sell it. You'd think Hammer would at least owe it to Lee to ham it up given this franchise all but depended on Dracula's inclusion even if his presence by this point had become redundant.

Just in case you were wondering, even if you watch this film for the T & A, the initial attraction wears off faster than you think. Yes, cult cinema cheesecake Caroline Munroe shows her generous body and she looks magnificent as usual, but really, if Hammer's continued embrace of the naked body and Lee and Cushing going head to head doesn't save the movie, nothing does.

This movie really is a lame failure on all accounts, and it is a pity once you get down to the bare essentials- you had two stalwarts being reunited with a fresh restart to a fading franchise only for the studio to chicken out and give the audience what they want... again... and again... and again. If it's of any consultation to you though, the final film manages to claw back the most scantest of ground Dracula had left to stand on... not that it truly makes a difference in the end.

Trivia: You have probably noticed that my review is quite lack-lusture, this was intentional on my part, because really, I don't care much for this movie. Thing is, I like a few worse films than this, but I am able to find more humor in them. It's a cruel, strange world.


And before you male readers say I don't cater to your tastes:

                                                     The aforementioned Caroline Munroe.
                                                             Please stop your bitching.

                   

STABBITY STABBITY!

Nice OSHIT face, Bro, and sorry for the brief dead air, folks.


The fifth but far from final excursion into Dracula's world by Hammer- 'Scars of Dracula' is the type of film which really tests a Dracula fan's loyalty- will you go along with it, or will you despise it with every fibre of your being due to it's outlandish take on the character. To my begrudging amazement, personally, I thought it was fine... for what it was.

I'm not gonna bother going over the story's finer details other than the tried and true "Dracula returns to life (this time thanks to a very fake rubber bat drooling blood onto his ashes) silly schmuck finds his way into Dracula's lair, gets into trouble and his friends come to find him only to get into trouble themselves" schtick, however, I must confess that this film works more as a slasher than a Dracula movie- you see, Dracula doesn't so much rely upon his supernatural abilities to cause havoc- he uses sharp implements. Yep, Dracula has become a SLASHER, a very well dressed one. With his blazing red eyes and the baring of his incisors, there is nothing sane about this guy. In a very left of center sequence, Dracula repeatedly stabs one of his wives to death with a nasty-looking dagger as her lover/victim watches in horror and then subsequently drinks blood from her dead body like a rabid wolf. What the Hell?! In another scene, Dracula's vicious nature takes a decidedly perverted turn- he punishes his man servant, Klove (the selfsame character from DPOD), an activity that he thoroughly enjoys, but here's the kicker- Klove seems to be enjoying this treatment and Dracula is only too happy to oblige. The widely-used term 'torture porn' can be truthfully applied here.

                                                       How's THIS for a lightsaber?

Many of his sequences involve the merciless torture of his victims, all of them in cruel and vindictive ways. But, in a way, this new side to Dracula to an extent- DOES work. Director Ray Ward Baker must be given credit for trying to take Dracula and his shennenigans in another direction- there is a distinct scent of mouldy Gothic cheese coating every sequence (though Lee himself remains cheese-proof), yet you can still appreciate the fact that Baker IS trying and not all of his efforts are wasted. Some of the more inspiring sequences include direct references to the Bram Stoker novel- for the first time, we see Lee's Dracula scaling the wall like a lizard, some of his lines (or trash talk to be specific- "You fools! Do you think you could match your wits with mine?") are lifted right from the pages, and, perhaps the sweetest, a nod to the notion that Dracula was once known as Vlad the Impaler. While this film isn't an abbitor by today's desensitized standards, you still get plentiful claret being spilled and bodies being mutilated to keep you satisfied. Despite the ever-increasing contempt Lee had for the character, he still manages to instill his unforgettable savagery into the role that you can't imagine anybody else doing it. Even when he dies once again due to some retarded means, you know he will come back ready to rock again and that you can count on for a good time.
As long as you're willing to go with this, this shouldn't be too bad a ride.

                                           Malcom McDowell- not Dracula's favourite person

However, if you are a purist Dracula fan, I suggest for your health that you avoid this movie like the Plague- most of this film, and Lee's portrayal could be construed as an insult- long gone is his articulate nature and regal bearing, replacing it is the form of a man-beast, thirsty and single minded by his thirst. If this wasn't Dracula, this version of the vampire would have worked wonderfully, but once again- money and public demand usually mean sell out. And here, the character of Dracula, the ESSENCE of him, has been drained completely dry. Were it not for the fact that Lee jumps into the perversity of the role, there really is no apparent reason to sit through this. Not to say the supporting players don't do fine with the way thinner material they were given (and if you want lovely natural female nudity with your Bloody Mary, it's right here), but honestly, by this point, the series' only drawing point was Lee's presence- without Lee, audiences would have given this one the shaft without even having seen it. Sad, but ultimately true, which just goes to show that selling out a once promising series wasn't first pioneered with the 'Saw' films isn't a contemporary practice.

                                                                       Charming.

In saying all of that, this isn't what I consider the weakest link of the series, but when you compare it against the earlier outings... this one is merely serviceable. It has some memorable moments that should be given respect, but since it has actively placed itself in the series' canon, you can't get away from the fact this could have been so much better if you actually gave a damn about it, but if it wasn't made, you really wouldn't have given a damn.

Trivia: Is it just me or does Dracula have far too many weaknesses/ways to be destroyed? Sunlight, running water, wolfsbane, staking, garlic, fire, crosses/religious icons, electricity (yes, electricity)... come on Dracula, don't tell us you also have asthma. 

Just how fucking bored do you have to be?!

While Taste The Blood of Dracula is not (at least to me) as solid as the first three canonical Dracula films from Hammer, it doesn't have the distinct whiff of crap-burger the follow-ups have. Indeed, after watching it again specifically for this review, I can say that it would have actually worked better without the inclusion of Dracula. Seriously, this entire tale would have worked just as well if another vampiric character was the main villain. One of the main problems the later Dracula franchise had was finding convoluted ways to bring Dracula back as well as give him motivation to go on his killing sprees. In the case of TTBOD, this time around, he isn't killing for himself- he's doing it for his faithful servant!
That's right, Dracula actually gives a damn about a scarce number of humans in the world, by way of instance here, Lord Courtley (Ralph Bates). But I'm overshooting, let's back up a little.

Three elderly men, terminally bored with their bougeouise lives and bored with their families make nightly excursions to bawdy houses and other places of ill repute to get a cheap thrill, despite knowing how temporary it all is. Finally, they meet Lord Courtley, a young man who may just have the ultimate thrill... and a Satanist. As the three men find out, this ultimate thrill is to resurrect Dracula using several artifacts and powdered blood (admittedly, it's not too badly thought out, though come on... POWDERED blood? Dracula isn't a protein shake!)

                                                                   More tea, Vicar?

Despite their initial foolish impulses to follow through on this dark ritual, and despite Courtley's goading, the three men back out and kill Courtley in not just fright but also a sudden onset of conscience. However, the damage has already been done and Drac is back with a new plan of attack. Angry that his loyal servant has been killed, Dracula takes it upon himself to kill not only the elderly thrill seekers, but their entire families- kinda reminds you of a certain Keyser Soze, doesn't it?

Alright, now is this a bad film? No. If you get over the fact that it's Dracula, it's actually a lot of fun with the usual lush production values Hammer utilized with ample bloodshed and titillation to spare. It still retains a distinct set of class to add to the ridiculous fun. I believe however that Dracula really has no reason to be here. The character of Lord Courtley was originally meant to be the lead villain, and I would have loved to have seen that. Ralph Bates has the charisma, menace and handsome looks to carry off a vampiric character and I found him quite magnetic every time he was on screen. In fact, the story did have Courtley as the vampire with no mention of Dracula. Hammer's distribution studio refused to accept a film without Lee because they wanted to cash in on Dracula further and it was this that made Lee contemptuous of the character with movies to come- he did it, but he didn't dig it. At least here though, he is still a joy to watch as he punishes fool humans left and right and taking some thrall women on the side.

                                           Come on, don't tell me this kinda picture wasn't inevitable.


But what also lifts this production from potential dirge is also the underlying message that humans have a tendency to mess with what they don't understand and get burned for it. The three old thrill seekers see the error of their ways when Dracula sets to work on their families and they realize how foolish they have been in their own selfish pursuits. There is no Van Helsing to chastise them on the idiocy of their ways- it's a hard lesson they find out for themselves, too little, too late. One could almost say this is a Sins of the Father fable which sees their children having to contend with Dracula due to the fact their fathers screwed up. I'm not going to mention the whole fact that Dracula is doing this out of revenge for a human servant, no matter how faithful they were- this development was obviously a money-grabbing excuse to bring Dracula back, nothing more. It's not Lee's fault by any means, he was on contract after all and he did what he could, but this is a silly movie with enough redeeming features to make it entertaining, but it's not enough to lift it's credibility. If I have anything to say, see it if you are curious or if you are a completist of the series, don't see it if you are looking for a solid film with Dracula as it's center, something which this is not.

                                                             A metaphor for my ranking.

Thank you for stating the obvious...

Don't you just LOVE this poster? Pink band-aids, front cleavage AND sarcasm?

By 1968, it was no secret that Christoper Lee was the undisputed Dracula of the generation. Lee had appeared in quite a few other Hammer productions and they had all been quite successful, but his bread was ultimately buttered by Dracula's success that he found it difficult to be seen as anybody else. While he would soon be almost contemptuous about the character he had re-invented, Dracula Has Risen From The Grave still remains one of the better films. While not quite up to par as the first and DPOD, it's still quite respectable with some fascinating new ideas, more on that later.

                                   With more buxom dead women hanging upside down to spare!

If the title wasn't obvious enough, Dracula has indeed risen from the grave and as predicted, quite pissed off with everybody alive. Van Helsing or Sandor do not return, in fact, there is no real heroic older warrior fated to battle with Dracula. No, instead we meet Paul (Barry Andrews), young, handsome, in love and harboring a secret that will dictate how he  does battle with Dracula. He is the loving suitor of Maria (the lovely Veronica Carlson), an arrangement that her father, the Monsignor Ernest Muller hardly agrees with. Despite this, Paul's work and love life are still pretty damn good until Dracula comes a-calling.
You see, Dracula arose from the grave when a cowardly, weak-willed priest, a friend of the Monsignor's, traveled to Dracula's castle to place a cross on the door to sanctify it from evil. His travelling companion fell and died, his blood mysteriously finding it's way into Dracula's mouth. Yes, I am intentionally being vague about where Dracula is in this situation because if I told you, you wouldn't believe me. Dracula ain't happy about the cross on his door and he makes the weak priest his slave, as you do.

So Dracula sets up his chop shop in the town where the other characters are going about their business, and as expected, he starts to thrall/and/or/kill his victims, one case being the loose barmaid Zena (Barbra Ewing, who is only too happy to show a little more cleavage than anybody in the films at this point), who has an unrequited feelings regarding Paul.

Terence Fisher didn't return to direct this sequel, instead the duties were handed over to Freddie Francis who takes everything in stride. Where Fisher made his films with a sense of classic Gothic forboding, Francis is more in favour of adding more visual flare, using dramatic, almost symbolic lighting and imagery. He can fill empty spaces with a sense of disorientating claustrophobia and turn the dreariest cellar into a kaleidiscopic chamber of frights. He also really knows how to use this unusually colourful style to compliment the stature of Christopher Lee, making him look just that little more menacing.

                                                              The death of disco.


DHRFTG may not have the distinct flavor the previous two Dracula films had, but for what it lacks in paying homage to old school it makes up for in brand new notions. Granted, obviously Hammer had to keep the series fresh for years to come (and in some cases failing in execution), but I find the crucial twist to affairs is quite, quite clever. Paul is not some member of a cult long devoted to fighting Dracula, nor is he half vampire like Blade, no, he is.... an atheist. Now do you see Maria's father doesn't like him? :-D When shit hits the fan and Paul is called upon to help save Maria (after Dracula's inevitable visit to her bedroom, ya-HOO), it's difficult for him because in order to defeat Dracula (in this case), you must have faith, Christian faith, to vanquish him. Given this dynamic was introduced early in the film, it's pay-off has that much more of an impact than you would expect. However, there is a massive cop-out that is to be anticipated when Paul finally eliminates Dracula- he converts, just like that. I didn't like that- sure he had to struggle with himself in order to save the woman he loved, but a total spiritual make over? Come on. I liked Atheist Paul better than Born Again Virgin Paul.

Now, what can be said about Lee other than what has already been stated? Nothing new really, but a massive development that has occurred between DPOD and DHRFTG is that Dracula has become especially violent toward women, Zena in particular. He thralls her, no muss, no fuss, orders her around, uses her as an occasional drink and just overall abuses her. He doesn't even have the decency to make her into a vampire. This trait continues on through the series, getting more dire in degrees that you almost forget he is a vampire and see him more as an abusive boyfriend. It's definitely a shocking development, but in terms of Dracula, you can see the logic- he really is the pimp of the undead.

 

                                            Protect your woman from Dracula's pimp hand, Paul!


If I may say so, I should say this is where the Hammer Dracula franchise should have ended. It came, it saw and Dracula's destruction seemed final. Of course, money spoke loudly and then the Dracula Express starting to roll downhill at breakneck speed. DHRFTG bids farewell to solid horror storytelling only to make way for many senseless and confusing sequels that were made with an eye for profit than true viewer pleasure that went beyond showing nubile female flesh. Check it out and shed a small tear of blood with me.

Trivia: Lee does indeed speak in this movie, and while I couldn't say no listening to Lee's voice, there are a few clunkers. When he sees the cross upon his castle door, he says "Who did this? Who DID this?", which sounds like an owner chastising a dog that pooped on their shoes. Methinks Lee got a little more in the pocket this time around.

The Prince has returned

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Bite Me!

All Dracula Bites


Dracula spreads the love to these lucky ladies throughout all of the Hammer films in this clip.

Could it be... Lee?

While Lugosi's Count of Counts was generally a one-off affair, Dracula was resurrected again by Hammer Films in the formidable shape of Sir Christopher Frank Carandini Lee which turned out to become a long-running franchise full of hits and misses. While the 70's Hammer fully embraced sex, blood and nudity, in my opinion, the true essense of the series remains back in the first few installments, back when mere mortal men feared him and women tremblingly desired him. In Horror of Dracula, or Dracula as it was known outside of the UK, there was still a lot of fear to be felt, but also, a sense of dark animal sexuality rather than simple gaudy lust.

When Hammer Studios was first formed, it primarily made comedies, film noirs, dramas and crime thrillers, but it was the mid- 50's that truly saw the birth of Hammer Horror, and this was the time period that many a horror fan and Dracula fan will remember the most fondly because the moment they saw Christopher Lee with blazing red eyes and nasty, pointed teeth hissing like a demonic beast, they knew they were in for a ride.

                                                                   Count RapeFace

Despite the time period of which Horror was made, this is quite a sumptuous looking picture, in full colour. You can only imagine how the sight of bright red blood must have shocked movie goers back in the day. With this knowledge, the production milks every frame, every scene for what it's worth. Although there are no technically fancy camera angles, Fisher more than makes up for it by really working every other facility- lighting, dramatic music score, composition... it all works very well. If that sounds a little airy-fairy, I should also mention that violence wise, while it still leaves much to the imagination, the make up and visual effects shows enough to really stand out. You see some pretty brutal stakings, cross burnings, bloody bite marks AND a decomposition, all of it blameless and all of it made by hand.
You can truly see the skill of all involved in the production in this movie, and once again, while it may be tame by today's standards, you can't deny the fact it was made with an eye to make it the best product it could possibly be. On top of what we see in terms of visuals, we have ourselves a talented cast. It's not a diamond in the rough affair in terms of actors- the key players here, unlike Browning's Dracula all perform with charisma to spare, Melissa Stribling, Mina HOLMWOOD (not Harker) especially so. You wouldn't think it, but Stribling's performance is actually quite fascinating to watch. For the most part, she is a proper Victorian woman dearly devoted to her husband, Arthur (another deviation, yes) and her duty of care to sickly Lucy, (who is the sister this time) the fiancee of Jonathan Harker. However, when she falls into Dracula's clutches, she becomes a little unsettling. It's not an overt performance, but there is a look in her eyes that will make you think "What DID Dracula do to her?". Another player that gives a wonderful performance (though this time, predicatably so) is Peter Cushing as Professor Van Helsing. He may not be Dutch and he may not have a small dose of the crazy such as his literary counterpart, but I would feel a lot safer if I had Cushing's Van Helsing in my corner. Self-assured, clear-thinking and effortlessly resourceful, he is much a force of good as he is a force of knowledge.

And what of Lee's performance, you ask? The guy is equal parts a barbarian as he is a pimp. Although the later notion is only lightly hinted, you get it from the get go that Dracula can be a sexual predator. He lays claim to women whenever he pleases and he throws them aside as if they were nothing when he is sick of them, sometimes in violent ways. Everybody is part of his sanguinous banquet, even if they don't know it just yet. In that essence, he is like Stoker's Dracula- he is a foreign, powerful virile creature who can make any man fear for their lives, and for the faithfulness of their women. I would be lying if I said that this Dracula wasn't arousing, despite how vicious he is. Lee's Dracula just has everything going for him, up until the moment Van Helsing finally disposes of him. This is one motherfucker you just don't want to mess with. Despite the fact that the character would become cheapened through the series, folks loved The Lee and here, you can see why.

Horror of Dracula is, at least in my blood-tinted vision, unmissable. Lee AND this film truly set the benchmark for further Draculas to come by the instrumentation of fear and sexuality. This is not a faithful adaption, but in this case, Horror of Dracula is still a marvelously self-contained take on the tale and is one of the best Draculas out there. See it, and call me in the morning... provided your throat hasn't been torn out.

Trivia: Isn't it remarkable serendipity that Peter Cushing was born on the 26th of May and Lee on the 27th despite being several years apart?