|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jan 4, 2021 0:16:17 GMT
Gonna watch this soon. Is it any good?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 4, 2021 0:24:37 GMT
It's decent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jan 4, 2021 0:30:26 GMT
The destruction of Dracula was ground-breaking for the time.
Compare the finale with the 1931 film and you can see the difference.
But I am not a fan of it overall-I think the early parts are a little talky-stagey.
A shame it didn't have a bigger budget--since Lee is so good in the role and Cushing
makes Van Helsing more like a Sherlock Holmes.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jan 4, 2021 1:32:44 GMT
Horror of Dracula (1958), directed by Terence Fisher. The first Hammer Films Dracula and the first of many starring Christopher Lee. Compared to both earlier and later versions, the sets are all neat and clean. The Count seems a perfect, if distant, gentleman when in a social mood. In this edition Harker knows all about vampires and arrives with a secret plan to destroy him. That doesn't go so well, but van Helsing is also on the case. The only part I remember from childhood is how the dapper doctor turns into an action hero in the last scene: jumping up onto a table, pulling down the curtains and improvising a crucifix from candlesticks. The OAR is 1.66, changed to 1.77 on this disc. Part of a four-film set of Hammer Draculas, each rated lower than the one before it. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Hurdy Gurdy Man on Jan 4, 2021 2:48:45 GMT
It is complete bullshit from start to end.
I don't like Lee much as Dracula because his typically crooked English teeth are distracting.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Jan 4, 2021 6:30:52 GMT
I find it far superior to the 1931 Universal version.
I prefer the first two sequels, however - Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966) and Dracula Has Risen From the Grave (1968). Be sure to check them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jan 4, 2021 8:34:03 GMT
6/10 Pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Jan 4, 2021 8:38:45 GMT
It's essential "Dracula" cinema.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jan 5, 2021 1:26:05 GMT
This movie nearly blew us kids out of the theatre in '58.
Shock Theatre was new at the time and we were becoming familiar with the Universal Classics, but the British Dracula in blazing color, garish blood red and final shocking death of the Count was an animal of a different stripe.
I still think it is a good movie, although time has taken much of the edge off it. Even if you don't like the film, it firmly cemented Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee as cinema icons and was a milestone in the history of the horror genre.
|
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Jan 5, 2021 19:43:21 GMT
9/10 Atmospheric with a very exciting Dracula destruction scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jan 5, 2021 21:58:03 GMT
I liked it more on a recent rewatch, but the script’s pretty weak. Terence Fisher’s moving camera and (especially) Peter Cushing’s energetic, heartfelt performance are the best things about it. And the ending deserves all the plaudits it receives.
That said, ultimately my heart’s more with ’30s horror’s black-and-white eeriness than with ’50s-’60s horror’s blood and bosoms.
|
|
|
|
Post by gspdude on Jan 6, 2021 18:21:05 GMT
 Valerie Gaunt, the 1st Hammer Vampire to show fang. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jan 6, 2021 19:37:52 GMT
I don't like Harker writing in his diary--that seemed too showy and drags.
And the dictaphone scene--would have been better to have Van Helsing speaking into the machine directly
instead of us listening to him reciting it on tape. It's just awkward.
Or should I call him Dr Helsing like someone does later in the movie?
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jan 6, 2021 19:46:09 GMT
I don't like Harker writing in his diary--that seemed too showy and drags. And the dictaphone scene--would have been better to have Van Helsing speaking into the machine directly instead of us listening to him reciting it on tape. It's just awkward. Or should I call him Dr Helsing like someone does later in the movie? Which makes me wonder—who was the best Hammer writer? Other than Nigel Kneale, of course.Anthony Hinds (whether or not under his array of pseudonyms)? I think you said he was the main creative at Hammer? I definitely think Seth Holt was their best director.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jan 6, 2021 19:58:30 GMT
Which makes me wonder—who was the best Hammer writer? Other than Nigel Kneale, of course.Anthony Hinds (whether or not under his array of pseudonyms)? I think you said he was the main creative at Hammer? I definitely think Seth Holt was their best director. Another problem with it is-didn't Harker going to Dracula's castle to destroy him trigger Dracula going off on his murder spree? Why did Harker bring along a photo of his fiancee for Dracula to look at?
Hinds was the primary creative director, I think Michael Carreras shared some of it. James Carreras was primarily the money gatherer and rumor has it he pocketed some of the money as he went out the door making it harder for his son to do things with the company.
I liked Roy Ward Baker and Peter Sasdy. John Hough also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Jan 6, 2021 21:11:23 GMT
Another problem with it is-didn't Harker going to Dracula's castle to destroy him trigger Dracula going off on his murder spree? Why did Harker bring along a photo of his fiancee for Dracula to look at?
Hinds was the primary creative director, I think Michael Carreras shared some of it. James Carreras was primarily the money gatherer and rumor has it he pocketed some of the money as he went out the door making it harder for his son to do things with the company.
I liked Roy Ward Baker and Peter Sasdy. John Hough also. Oh, definitely. I don’t usually mind plot holes, but Sangster’s script is jam-packed things like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Jan 7, 2021 1:06:04 GMT
I've found several authors find that plot-point (Dracula's motivation) an interesting perspective. In his review of HORROR and CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN in VIDEO WATCHDOG, Kim Newman found Peter Cushing's Baron and Van Helsing share a ruthlessness. The Baron's desire to create causes him to drop into unethical bounds while Van Helsing's pursuit to kill Dracula is undone by the unreliability of others (Harker, the maid who obeys Lucy's desperations to remove the flowers), their ruthlessness causing death (although CURSE has a bigger body count). He does note the difference is that the Baron cares little while Van Helsing comforts and protects the victims. Lyndon Joslin, via his book COUNT DRACULA GOES TO THE MOVIES, finds Sangster's adaptation gives Dracula a sympathetic wrinkle for all his evil. His employing Harker to catalogue his library appears to be genuine, and he does do some gentlemen actions for him: protects him from the vampiress, puts him to bed and locks the door for his protection, and respects his privacy (the diary). Both Newman and Joslyn sees the adaptation gives Dracula a motivation to attack the Holmwoods (one could also argue it removes the canonical plot contrivance of one of Dracula's first foreign victims just happening to be best friends with Harker's fiancee). I wonder if the book readers were rather shocked that Sangster kills off Harker so early.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jan 7, 2021 2:36:55 GMT
The movie is noteworthy (compared to the 1931 version) for making Dracula into an actual demon (although he seemed kind of tragic when he dies--he doesn't look angry but sad and in pain). But compared to the sinister Valentino of the 31 film, Lee is more threatening and supernatural. I think his angry fanged face was one of the more innovative horror images of the late 50s. Unusual for the time.
Van Helsing on the other hand (in the last scene) displays a kind of old fashioned heroics that David Manners and Edward Van Sloan failed to--and people always respond to that.
The Baron in Curse of Frankenstein is a very clever twist on the story because he says he grew up as an orphan-he had no parents-and this lack of compassionate relationships is what caused him to be so devilish--and the importance of compassionate relationships IS the primary message in the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 7, 2021 7:04:28 GMT
Very good. Cushing is the best Van Helsing.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jan 7, 2021 7:32:04 GMT
I am not a fan.
I think it is a rather dull version of the Dracula story and it is held up only by Peter Cushing. I am not much of a fan of Christopher Lee as Dracula. The movie is poorly paced, lacks atmosphere and has a completely uninspired screenplay imo.
I don't hate the movie, but it is thoroughly mediocre.
|
|
