HORROR OF DRACULA

Within the first ten minutes of HORROR OF DRACULA, the first buxom lass appears, boobs akimbo, and all thought of Tod Browning's immortal but insanely boring 1931 Universal classic goes right out the window. I must admit to never really being a fan of the Universal Dracula. As a child, I was more familiar with the countless spoofs of Lugosi's performance than I was with the film itself. So when I finally saw the film, I couldn't help but chuckle. Years later, as a teenager, I caught the film again on television and simply couldn't believe how bored I was by it. The film that spawned countless sequels, retreads, remakes and spoofs was an absolute yawner. Incredibly disappointing.


Horror of Dracula

To be honest, I'm not even that much of a vampire film fan. I simply don't find vampires to be interesting villains. Vampires nowadays have become even less than that. Between Anne Rice and TWILIGHT, they've become downright emasculated, turned into whiny, pathetic little creatures that pout and pity in between sucking a few young girls dry. The only vampire films I seem to enjoy are the Hammer vampire films - mostly because they feature character actors I enjoy and some of the hottest actresses known to man - and HORROR OF DRACULA, or just DRACULA, is one of my all-time favorites.


Horror of Dracula

Terence Fisher's rendition of Bram Stoker's classic novel clocks in at a brisk 81minutes but feels more like 45. Gone is the long journey from Transylvania to England from the novel - one of screenwriter Jimmy Sangster's most brilliant moves is in making Dracula English, an idea which re-enforces the film's notion of Dracula as oppressive, destructive aristocracy - and in it's place is nearly unstopped momentum. The film never lags, never stands still for too long. The removal of Jonathan Harker from the film early on - in yet another wonderful revisionist twist - places the emphasis squarely on Van Helsing, arguably the most interesting character in the Dracula mythos. The only downside to the film's narrative is the relative scarcity of the villain himself. While not as invisible as in, say, THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA, Christopher Lee is missing for most of the film, popping up only now and then to terrorize, seduce and lay his fangs into a young woman. Thankfully, the film's final showdown between Van Helsing and Dracula more than makes up for it.


Peter Cushing Van Helsing Dracula

It's easy to see why this film raised a few eyebrows in it's day. The scenes in which Dracula attacks the film's heroines are wonderfully complex. The mixture of eroticism and horror - while Dracula's victims are undeniably attracted to him, their expressions barely mask absolute horror; the bites result not only in wide-eyed shock but also quick, orgasmic gasps of breath - is a staple of Hammer horror films in general and their vampire films in particular. Add to the mix the sight of Van Helsing, the film's symbol of Christian salvation, pounding stakes into the hearts of young, attractive women and you have a film that incited a great deal of controversy in 1958.


Hammer Dracula

Today the film is much, much more tame but the visual impact of the film has not lessened a bit. This is still one of the best looking entries in the Hammer Dracula series. The set-bound interiors are minor works of art, impeccably designed by Bernard Robinson and photographed beautifully by Jack Asher. Fisher, one of horror's great unsung directors, keeps the film rooted in a kind of poetic realism. His direction compensates for the relatively sparce narrative. You never have the chance to grow bored, no matter how familiar the story becomes, because of the major talent both behind and in front of the camera.


Highly recommended.