THE TWO FACES OF DR. JEKYLL (1960) d. Terence Fisher (UK)
NEVER TAKE SWEETS FROM A STRANGER (1960) d. Cyril Frankel (UK)
HELL IS A CITY (1960) d. Val Guest (UK)
Celebrated for its distinctive brand of horror and suspense, Hammer Films has left an indelible mark on British cinema and influencing filmmakers around the world.
The year 1960 was especially significant for Hammer, as it was a time when the studio was solidifying its identity as a horror juggernaut, but also experimenting with genres, and pushing the boundaries of storytelling, atmosphere, and visual style.
This episode focuses on four films from that year: BRIDES OF DRACULA, THE TWO FACES OF DR. JEKYLL, NEVER TAKE SWEETS FROM A STRANGER, and HELL IS A CITY. Each representing a different facet of Hammer’s evolving approach, from Gothic horror and psychological thrillers to socially conscious drama and gritty crime narratives.
Join AC and his incredible panel of guests (Troy Howarth, Stan Hyde, Barry Kaufman, Lin Morris, and yours truly) as we look back at HAMMER IN 1960!!
This will probably be a new feature, similar to the old monthly LUNAR CYCLE I used to do. I figured I would just post quick thoughts on films I've recently seen, while giving bigger/solo spotlights to more popular/important films. Let's see how this goes.
TOTALLY KILLER (2023)
Directed By:Nahnatchka Khan
Starring: Kiernan Shipka, Olivia Holt, Julie Bowen, Charlie Gillepsie, Lochlyn Munro, Troy Leigh-Anne Johnson, Kimberly Huie, Randall Park
Genre:Horror/Science Fiction/Slasher
Running Time:106 Minutes
Score:3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)
Plot:Thirty-five years after the shocking murders of three teens, an infamous killer returns on Halloween night to claim a fourth victim. When 17-year-old Jamie comes face-to-face with the masked maniac, she accidentally time-travels back to 1987. Forced to navigate the unfamiliar culture, Jamie teams up with her teenage mother to take down the psycho once and for all.
Review: If you like FREAKY or HAPPY DEATH DAY, you'll get a kick out of Amazon's TOTALLY KILLER. While it should have used its BACK TO THE FUTURE premise better, I still had fun with it. The 80s needle drops are always welcomed, the characters were colorful and the mystery of the killer kept me guessing [decent twist at the end]. I wish Kiernan Shipka’s character didn't keep mentioning how things in the 80s were problematic like they are in 2023. Saying it once or twice is fine, but every five to ten minutes wasn’t necessary. I also wish the film was a bit funnier. Still, I didn’t feel like I wasted my time.
PET SEMATARY: BLOODLINES (2023)
Directed By:Lindsey Beer
Starring:Jackson White, Forest Goodluck, Jack Mulhurn, Henry Thomas, Natalie Anne Lynd, Isabella Star LeBlanc, Pam Grier, David Duchovny, Samantha Mathis
Genre:Horror/Science Fiction/Fantasy/Zombies
Running:87 Minutes
Score:1 Howl Outta 4 (3 out of 10)
Plot:In 1969, a young Jud Crandall has dreams of leaving his hometown of Ludlow, Maine behind, but soon discovers sinister secrets buried within and is forced to confront a dark family history that will forever keep him connected to Ludlow.
Review: The less said about PET SEMATARY: BLOODLINES, the better. 87 minutes and felt longer than that, as I had to sit through multiple sittings just to get through this. Great actors [Pam Grier, Henry Thomas, Samantha Mathis, David Duchovny] were wasted in their roles. The story dragged towards an unsatisfying resolution. The novel and even the ‘89 version told this story in a more effective way in a much lesser time span. I wasn’t the biggest fan of the 2019 remake, but I thought maybe this prequel could have improved on that. The people behind this forced franchise should realize that sometimes, dead is better.
SHE CAME FROM THE WOODS (2022)
Directed By:Erik Bloomquist
Starring:Cara Buono, Clare Foley, Spencer List, William Sadler, Michael Park, Tyler Elliot Burke
Genre:Horror/Supernatural/Slasher
Running Time:101 Minutes
Score:3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)
Plot:In 1987, a group of counselors accidentally unleashes a decades’ old evil on the last night of summer camp.
Review: Caught this modern slasher on Tubi before it left the service and I dug it quite a bit. Set in 1987 [besides the modern language and the appearance of an Apple Watch - whoops], this supernatural slasher involves a camp being terrorized by a watch who possesses children and campers after a ritual gone wrong. Good performances [Cara Buono and William Sadler especially], decent gore effects considering its small budget and a lore that’s nicely built but doesn’t end in a real satisfactory way makes this one worth looking for whenever it pops back up on Tubi or another streaming service. Recommended for FRIDAY THE 13TH, THE BURNING and MADMAN fans.
DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936)
Directed By:Lambert Hillyer
Starring:Gloria Holden, Otto Kruger, Marguerite Churchill, Irving Pichel, Gilbert Emery, Edward Van Sloan
Genre:Horror/Drama/Fantasy/Vampires
Running Time:71 Minutes
Score:3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)
Plot:A countess from Transylvania seeks a psychiatrist’s help to cure her vampiric cravings.
Review: The first sequel to the immortal 1931 Universal Studios classic DRACULA, I slightly like this film more due to the filmmaking style. This feels more like a real movie than the stagey DRACULA does. The story with the Countess dealing with not wanting to be like her father, trying to find ways to stop being a vampire, was actually pretty interesting, Plus for a film from this era, having a lesbian angle was quite brave and surprising in a good way. I thought the performances were okay, with only Gloria Holden really standing out as the title character. And learning she hated being in this film because she thought she was above the material, it makes her performance stronger and more legit in my opinion. Plus, the film is short and sweet and doesn’t overstay its welcome.
BLOOD OF DRACULA (1957)
Directed By:Herbert L. Strock
Starring:Sandra Harrison, Louise Lewis, Gail Ganley, Mary Adams, Malcolm Afterbury, Barbara Wilson, Lynn Alden
Genre:Horror/Vampires
Running Time:69 Minutes
Score:2 Howls Outta 4 (5 out of 10)
Plot:A crazed teacher at a respectable girls’ school draws power from a medallion she has obtained from the Carpathian Mountains, and uses it to experiment telepathically on the school’s newest young pupil.
Review:Pretty much the same template as I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF, this “vampire” movie feels more like a teen drama with supernatural elements in it. Honestly, this film didn’t do a whole lot for me. It sort of meanders towards the finish line, with the main character being hypnotized and controlled by her teacher, for whatever reason, until we see the main reveal in the last moments of the movie. I thought the main character’s relationship with her father and her indifferent stepmother was interesting at the start, but it just felt flatter as the movie rolled on. Not bad, but nothing I would rush out to watch again.
THE VAMPIRE LOVERS (1970)
Directed By:Roy Ward Baker
Starring:Ingrid Pitt, Peter Cushing, George Cole, Kate O'Mara, Ferdy Mayne, Douglas Wilmer, Madeline Smith, Pippa Steel
Genre:Horror/Vampires
Running Time:91 Minutes
Score:3 Howls Outta 4 (7 out of 10)
Plot:In the heart of Styria the Karnstein Family, even after their mortal deaths, rise from their tombs spreading evil in the countryside in their lust for fresh blood. Baron Hartog whose family are all victims of Karnstein vampirism, opens their graves and drives a stake through their diabolical hearts. One grave he cannot locate is that of the legendary beautiful Mircalla Karnstein. Years of peace follow that grisly night until Mircalla reappears to avenge her family’s decimation and satisfy her desire for blood.
Review:Part of the Karnstein trilogy, this Hammer production is quite titillating with its lesbian undertones and an Ingrid Pitt performance that commands the spotlight and captivates the audience. Nicely paced, with a Gothic atmosphere and good performances that balance the horror with the melodrama. Probably not one of the best Hammer films out there, or even one I would think of whenever the studio is brought up. Yet, this one is definitely worth watching if you’re into sexy vampires.
TWINS OF EVIL (1971)
Directed By:John Hough
Starring:Peter Cushing, Dennis Price, Madeleine Collinson, Mary Collinson, Isobel Black, Kathleen Byron, David Warbeck
Genre:Horror/Vampires
Running Time:87 Minutes
Score:3 Howls Outta 4 (8 out of 10)
Plot:While dabbling in Satanism, Count Karstein resurrects Mircalla Karnstein who initiates him into vampirism. As a rash of deaths afflicts the village, Gustav the head of Puritan group leads his men to seek out and destroy the pestilence. One of his twin nieces has become inflicted with the witchcraft but Gustav’s zeal and venom has trapped the innocent Maria, threatening her with a tortuous execution, whilst Frieda remains free to continue her orgy of evil.
Review: The third film of Hammer’s Karnstein’s trilogy, I thought TWINS OF EVIL was a lot more fun to watch than THE VAMPIRE LOVERS. Better action. Better effects. More compelling performances, especially by Peter Cushing, David Warbeck and the Collinson twins. The title is misleading [only one evil twin really] and it isn’t as titillating as THE VAMPIRE LOVERS. But I liked this film quite a lot and would definitely watch this again.
SANTO VS. THE VAMPIRE WOMEN (1962)
Directed By:Alfonso Corona Blake
Starring:Santo, Lorena Velazquez, Maria Duval, Jaime Fernandez, Augusto Benedico, Ofelia Montesco, Xavier Loja
Genre:Horror/Action/Fantasy/Vampires/Werewolves
Running Time:89 Minutes
Score:2 Howls Outta 4 (5 out of 10)
Plot:A professor recruits a professional wrestler to protect his daughter from vampires intent on kidnapping her and marrying her to the devil.
Review: If you’ve ever watched a horror film starring Lucha Libre star Santo [or Samson in the English dubbing], you know exactly what you’re getting. Silly, campy and just oddball story and action involving a coven of female vampires and their male minions who want to kidnap the daughter of someone who escaped their grasp many years prior. The grandfather hires Santo to protect her, leading to many goofy action scenes, including a wrestling one involving a vampire/werewolf person(?). Considering this was an episode of MST3K, I don’t think the film is that bad that it earned that honor. While pretty dumb, the dubbing is actually funny and the action scenes are amusing. Plus I thought the final act was a lot of fun, especially with Santo driving that sweet convertible. Better than what its reputation would tell you, to be quite honest.
STARRING Daniel Radcliffe - Arthur Kipps
Ciaran Hinds - Samuel Daily
Janet McTeer - Elizabeth Daily
Shaun Dooley - Mr. Fisher
Mary Stockley - Mrs. Fisher
Misha Handley - Joseph Kipps
Jessica Raine - Nanny
Sophie Stuckey - Stella Kipps
Genre - Horror/Supernatural/Ghosts
Running Time - 95 Minutes
PLOT During the turn of the 20th Century in England, a widower named Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) hasn't been able to cope over the death of his wife who died during childbirth years ago. Due to his depression, he's been neglecting his real estate practice. His superiors, tired of Arthur's behavior, gives him one last chance to sell the Eel Marsh House - a Gothic estate that seems to have a dark, mysterious, and violent history. For some reason, Arthur's presence near the estate has upset the locals, as well as the spirits that seemingly haunt the place - in particular a certain woman in black...
REVIEW
It's been a while since I've reviewed a Hammer Film - one of my favorite horror studios from England. In fact, I have yet to review any of the modern Hammer horror films that have been released since Dutch TV producer, Jon de Mol, purchased the company and revived it in 2007 after the studio closed its doors in the early 1980s. The revival has been a mixed bag of sorts. 2010's remake, LET ME IN, was great. 2011's WAKE WOOD was above average. And from what I hear, 2011's THE RESIDENT and 2014's THE QUIET ONES were pretty lackluster for the most part. One of these days, I'll review each one of these new Hammer Films. But right now, let's talk about 2012's THE WOMAN IN BLACK before the sequel is released this weekend.
Good Things: I think what I really liked about THE WOMAN IN BLACK is the look and feel of the film. It's been a while since I've watched a ghost story in a Gothic setting that actually felt like what it was advertising. Director James Watkins creates a ton of atmosphere, mood, and a slow pace that keeps you invested even when the film loses itself in some aspects. The dull and bleak cinematography by Tim Maurice-Jones really enhanced the mood of the film, with Watkins investing in wide shots, mise-en-scene, and dolly shots to give the viewer a creepy ride throughout this town and Eel Marsh House. Seeing spirits rush through the frame, or stick out in the background, are things every good ghost story needs. The film, even though it had people in it, felt like an island - giving a sense of isolation throughout. Even the CGI that was used didn't bother me all that much. I thought for the most part, the visuals set the tone right making THE WOMAN IN BLACK feel more old school than modern.
I also thought the acting was pretty damn good here as well. THE WOMAN IN BLACK was Daniel Radcliffe's first post-HARRY POTTER film, and I thought he did a good job playing a wounded husband/father who was in a situation beyond his control. You kind of felt sympathy for Radcliffe's character, Arthur Kipps, as he dealt with his personal strife while also dealing with supernatural forces. To be honest with you, I think Radcliffe was more of an acteur in those HARRY POTTER films - only because he had eight films to evolve the character and make it his own - and show more emotion and depth in those films. But his subtle performance here gave you all you needed to know about the guy. He was probably way too young to play this role, but I thought he was pretty solid. The only other actors who stuck out were Ciaran Hinds and Janet McTeer, who had nice chemistry with Radcliffe and were given more scenery to chew on. The acting was one of the bright spots in the film.
And while predictable and cliche at times, I did enjoy the mystery aspect of the Woman in Black and what the supernatural deal was. Even though the film was adapted from a Susan Hill novel published in 1983, the adaptation seems to take certain aspects of other ghost films to tell its visual narration. But you're interested in why children are killing themselves. You wonder why the town believes in a curse and sort of blames Arthur for unleashing it again with his presence. And you're curious as to how it'll all be revealed towards its conclusion. The tragedy of this town is intriguing. And while the storytelling surrounding this plot point isn't near perfect, at least you're willing to sit through it to figure out what the hell is going on. Most modern horror films these days want to explain everything without much depth or substance behind them. At least THE WOMAN IN BLACK tries to do that, and I appreciated it. It's an old-school philosophy that I think most modern filmmakers and studios have lost along the way. Nice to see a recent film stick with what made horror so memorable and timeless, even if it doesn't work all the time for it.
And I felt THE WOMAN IN BLACK relied too heavily on jump scares. That's not too say that all of them failed to work. The one with the crow made me jump, mainly due to the loud sound design during these moments. Some others made me jump due to the sound as well. But it felt like there was a jump scare every 5 minutes, which made the next one feel less effective than the previous one. The atmosphere was creepy enough. These scares felt cheap by the fifth time. I did dig the sound design though. And that hanging scene - creepy...
Bad Things:THE WOMAN IN BLACK felt like an unfinished narrative at times. This mainly applies to the Arthur Kipps character, who actually has an interesting backstory that isn't exploited enough within the investigative portion of the film. His entire character is based around the fact that he hasn't gotten over the death of his wife and how that transitioned into a distant relationship with his son. As the film goes on, you tend to forget about this subplot because the narrative is too focused on the Eels Marsh House and the Woman in Black. The film never really focuses on the fact that Arthur's grief is what is feeding this spirit her power, as they share certain ghosts in their past that connect them in a mysterious way. And with all the children dying within the town, wouldn't that make Arthur more fearful about the situation since he's a father? He sees strange things, but never really questions them until it's too late. The townspeople dislike him, but he never asks why that is. Arthur has no urgency until it's convenient - a.k.a. flashbacks of his late wife - and never really worries for his son while all this goes on. Yeah, Arthur is distant with him, but he obviously thinks about him and loves him. The narrative felt really disjointed when it came to the two subplots. Arthur's misery should have made the Woman in Black stuff more effective because he can relate and feel the ghosts of his own past are haunting him. Arthur has a character arc that could have taken the film to places, but the script never allows that to fully happen. It's sad because I felt both subplots were interesting. They just needed to work together better.
Speaking of the script, the ending is something I'm on the fence on. Is it the worst conclusion to a ghost story ever? No, not really. But it lacked oomph and felt somewhat unsatisfying in a way. I understand why the climax occurs and what it represents in terms of Arthur's character. But it felt way too easy, too cliche, and kinda lame as the film just ends quietly. I actually asked myself, "That was it?" I've seen worse endings in horror films [at least this one didn't have a one last scare deal with annoys me by this point], but I felt the way the narrative was treated before it didn't justify a feeling of satisfaction during its conclusion. I think if the Arthur stuff was handled better within the main plot of the movie, the ending would have come across better. But it felt like a deflating balloon to me, honestly.
Like I said, the film relied on too many jump scares. It also didn't help that these took place during a long and sort of redundant second act where Arthur was investigating the mystery of the house. This portion wasn't terrible, but could have been handled in a much shorter amount of time. If more things happened during this portion, it would have come across better. Otherwise, 30 percent of it felt like filler.
THE FINAL HOWL
While it's not a perfect horror film in the slightest, I still liked THE WOMAN IN BLACK for the most part. The acting, especially by Daniel Radcliffe, was pretty solid. I loved the atmosphere and mood of the Gothic setting. And felt the visual presentation was top notch for this modern Hammer Films entry. The narrative could have been tighter, the ending a bit more satisfying, and less jump scares would have been appreciated. But overall, I thought this was a cool throwback ghost film that knew what it was and went for it. It was a stylish and elegant horror film - something that can't really be said for most modern horror. Not sure if the sequel will continue that trend, but we can only hope.
Join Rev. Phantom and I as we review movies from around
the world. Week three of 'Around the World in 12 Reviews' features reviews of IT
HAPPENED AT THE NIGHTMARE INN [a.k.a. A CANDLE FOR THE DEVIL] (1973/Spain), ANGST (1983/Austria) and
DEAD SNOW (2009/Norway). Plus a discussion on U.K. horror.
STARRING Peter Cushing - Dr. Van Helsing
Christopher Lee - Count Dracula
Michael Gough - Arthur Holmwood
John Van Eyssen - Jonathan Harker
Melissa Stribling - Mina Holmwood
Carol Marsh - Lucy Holmwood
Valerie Grunt - Vampire Woman
Genre - Horror/Action/Vampires
Running Time - 82 Minutes
When audiences think about the character of Dracula, usually the 1897 Bram Stoker novel and the 1931 Universal Pictures adaptation starring Bela Lugosi come to mind before anything else. It's no surprise. The Universal representation of this horror character has become iconic, to the point where modern interpretations of the character still maintain some of the elements Bela Lugosi made famous. Many actors have played the character within many adaptations on film, on television, and in other forms of media. But my personal favorite comes from the British based film studio known as Hammer.
Hammer Film Productions was founded in 1934. Even though they had a few successful films that dabbled in multiple genres, mainly mysteries and thrillers, they had issues with finances due to slumps in the British film industry and trying to move their studio. It wasn't until 1955 with The Quartermass Experiment on BBC Television [as well as Quartermass 2 in 1957] that Hammer Film Productions started to catch momentum. In 1957, the studio received a script for THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Although the novel by Mary Shelley was public domain, the script was too similar to the 1939 Universal film, SON OF FRANKENSTEIN. Realizing that Universal had the rights to the look of the Frankenstein monster and how the story was told, Hammer Films realized they had to present their version much differently. This included using color film instead of black and white, designing a different look for the monster, and pushing the envelope a bit in terms of violence and sexuality. The film was a giant success in both the UK and in the USA, influencing filmmakers at the time.
In 1958, DRACULA [or HORROR OF DRACULA in the United States] was released. But the film had its own share of problems during it's pre-production phase. Universal, who had the rights to the look and the stage play adaptation, wrote an 80 page legal agreement to Hammer with provisions that Hammer had to follow in order to avoid copyright infringement - and this was AFTER the film was already completed. The Hammer version of DRACULA couldn't use the same storyline as the Universal film. The Hammer version also had to present the story differently. Hammer felt that Universal would want to finance the film, so they can make some money off of this new version, but the studio had no interest [although the studio would financial the remainder of the budget while the National Film Finance Council made up the rest]. HORROR OF DRACULA changed the adaptation somewhat, changing relationships and characters while focusing more on an action feel with horror elements. It was also in color and had no shame in showing blood and seductive women. Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing signed on for the project and the film was a massive success all over the world. In essence, HORROR OF DRACULA was the film that really made Hammer Films into what it is known today.
After 54 years, HORROR OF DRACULA still manages to be considered the best adaptation of the Bram Stoker story, even with the liberties the script took with the original narrative. It's due to its presentation, incredible acting, and taut direction that keep HORROR OF DRACULA a favorite among horror fans. I will always respect Bela Lugosi for his portrayal of Dracula. But when I think of the character, I think of Christopher Lee and this awesome movie.
PLOT Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) arrives at Count Dracula's (Christopher Lee) castle, posing for a job as his librarian. While getting settled in, it's revealed that Jonathan is really there to kill Dracula, who he knows is a dangerous vampire that must be stopped. When Jonathan is distracted by one of Dracula's "brides" (Valerie Grunt) who tries to bite him, Dracula reveals his true form and eventually turns Jonathan into a vampire. What Dracula doesn't know is that Jonathan had kept a diary of his thoughts and actions on Dracula, sending it to Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing).
Van Helsing, finding Jonathan as a vampire, stakes him. He then tells Arthur (Michael Gough) and Mina Holmwood (Melissa Stribling) about Jonathan's passing, since Jonathan was engaged to Arthur's sister, Lucy (Carol Marsh). At the same time, Lucy has been feeling under the weather, concerning her brother and sister-in-law. What they don't know is that Lucy has been bitten by Dracula and is now seduced by him. When Lucy dies and turns into a dangerous vampire, Van Helsing convinces Arthur about the existence of vampires. The two decide to hunt down Dracula to kill him, not realizing that Dracula has his dangerous sights on Mina.
REVIEW
HORROR OF DRACULA is one of Hammer Films finest productions, and still holds up very well today. Unlike the stagey and static adaptation Universal had released back in 1931, this adaptation is horror-action at its finest. I could just imagine how this movie effected audiences back in 1958. The vibrant colors, the sight of red blood, the low cut dresses, and a Dracula that's more killer than a charming lover - this must have really opened eyes and caused an outcry that many would find humorous today. While there have been many versions of the Dracula story done on film since, HORROR OF DRACULA may be its best one.
Due to budget reasons and Universal's legal documents, the narrative in HORROR OF DRACULA had to be changed. There's no Renfield here. Dr. Seward barely makes an impression in a small cameo. The relationships have been switched with Mina now with Arthur and Lucy with Jonathan - it should be the opposite. The journey to Transylvania to Count Dracula's castle at the beginning of the story has been taken out. There's no asylum. Dracula also isn't a supernatural being, supposedly unable to transform into a bat or a wolf. You would think that these changes and omissions would ruin the traditional story. However, it allows the film to maintain a certain focus while screenwriter Jimmy Sangster maintains the essence of the novel.
HORROR OF DRACULA is only focused on one thing - the revenge plot against Dracula. The entire movie is a cat-and-mouse chase where certain characters are after Dracula for turning their friends into vampires. Unlike most adaptations, HORROR OF DRACULA feels more like an action film than a horror film, which works well in this installment. While the characters aren't as developed like they are in the novel, we know enough about them to care and understand their roles within the story. Jonathan Harker sets up the story fairly quickly, as we learn through him that Dracula is a vampire. Mina and Lucy are there to be victims of Dracula, which gives Arthur and Van Helsing reason to go after the vampire. Arthur is the skeptic who doesn't believe in vampires until he sees it for himself, becoming a hero afterwards. Van Helsing is the protagonist of the story, the Captain Ahab to Dracula's Moby Dick. He knows all about vampirism and how to combat it. He's a completely active character who will fight to survive, even if the odds are against him.
And then there's Dracula. Before this film adaptation, Dracula was portrayed as more of a charming, seductive character who came off as an aristocrat who just happened to be a legendary vampire. In HORROR OF DRACULA, the charm and seduction are downplayed for an animalistic take on the character. Like in the novel, Dracula comes across as a sexual predator, taking advantage of proper and prim women and turning them into sexually aggressive beings. Besides his first appearance, Dracula is never portrayed as a human being. He hisses and growls like an animal, always on the hunt and not caring who he has to charm to get his way. This Dracula is a parasite that needs to be stopped, as he doesn't mess around when it comes to getting a midnight snack. The character is ruthless and vicious, which makes Dracula a great villain and a perfect foil to the more calm and collected Van Helsing. While I'm sure this portrayal of Dracula shocked audiences in 1958, it's honestly the best way to go with the character. He's a monster in every sense of the word, just in human form. It makes the chase to stop Dracula that more interesting and exciting, building to a satisfying ending.
The set design and the use of blood are also highlights in HORROR OF DRACULA. Seeing blood in Technicolor must have been quite a sight in 1958, but it adds a lot to the film and shows how different this adaptation is from the 1931 Universal one. I also liked the Gothic sets and the wardrobe that reflects this period in time. The exterior shots are also quite lavish as well. I also loved the scene where Dracula turns into dust via sunlight. For its time, the special effects are quite good. It would all be CGI now, but I love practical effects like this one. I liked the burn scars of crucifixes on vampires whenever they were touched by one. It's obviously influenced other vampire adaptations ever since, especially in 1985's FRIGHT NIGHT and certain Buffy The Vampire Slayer episodes. The production values are really good here.
The direction by Terence Fisher, who is thought of as the best filmmaker in Hammer Film Productions history, is excellent. The pacing is great, as the film is only 82 minutes long. It's well shot, with great framing and composition. Loved the angles as well, especially when Dracula appeared. The film has atmosphere in spades. The action centered moments were paced and shot well. The color is vibrant. Fisher really wastes no time getting to the nitty gritty and sinking his fangs [pun intended] into the revenge portion of the film. There's no time to reflect on subtlety or Romanticism. This version of Dracula is violent action, which works in Fisher's energetic favor. Just a really solid job.
The acting is also very good here. Carol Marsh and Melissa Stribling are good as Lucy and Mina respectively. While prim and somewhat virginal, they still carry this quite seductive air about them that I liked. It's easy to see why Dracula was so eager to bite their necks. The ladies did a nice job. John Van Eyssen is cool as Jonathan Harker. He doesn't get to do much, but I liked his performance and his narration. Michael Gough, best known for his four portrayals as Alfred Pennyworth in the original BATMAN series, is okay as Arthur. He was a bit bland at times, but got better towards the end of the film.
Honestly, HORROR OF DRACULA belong to two people: Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Cushing, in my opinion, is the definitive Dr. Van Helsing. No one comes close to Cushing's portrayal of the character. He's charismatic, intelligent, fearless, and extremely convincing as a man who can kick a vampire's ass. He would only play Van Helsing two more times - in 1960's THE BRIDES OF DRACULA and 1972's DRACULA A.D. 1972 - as he was more focused on Hammer's FRANKENSTEIN franchise. Still, no one since has come close to matching Cushing's intensity and performance in the role.
And Christopher Lee, for me, is also the best Dracula out there. He's not in the film as much as people probably think, but it doesn't really matter. His performance creates a presence within the film that one could feel even when he isn't on screen. Lee creates an evil and animalistic Dracula, with a face that screams "don't fuck with me," - with bloodshot eyes and bloody fangs. It's no surprise he would play Dracula six more times in this franchise. He's fantastic in the role.
THE FINAL HOWL
HORROR OF DRACULA is one of the better, if not the best, Dracula film adaptations one can watch. It has two powerful performances by Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Terrence Fisher's direction creates mood and atmosphere through his framing, composition, and energetic pacing. The special effects are pretty neat for its time. And the narrative, while not the most faithful adaptation to Bram Stoker's novel, still works well as a cat-and-mouse revenge flick. This film, after all these years, is still worth swinging a Hammer for.
