Anyone find this film boring?

Definitely didn't find this boring. (I'm of roughly your age and have no sentimental attachment to Hammer Horror films. I've seen roughly a dozen of them, but it's been years and I've largely forgotten about them.)

Indeed, one of the things I enjoyed most about this is how quickly paced it is. Like a lot of older genre movies, it really crackles, packing a lot of story into its (roughly) eighty minutes. And everything here is in service of the story--nothing is added for the sake of padding the runtime. The movie doesn't take time to round out its characters (the characters are developed to the extent they need to be to play their roles in the story, and that's all) or luxuriate in its setting (there really aren't lingering shots to admire scenery or sets); it just plows ahead with one significant incident after another. I suppose that results in a loss of atmosphere and attachment to the characters, but the streamlined narrative compensates for those losses by clarifying the contours of the story (and its themes) and by generating some tension that would be lost with more deliberate pacing.

I see your point. I watched it for the first time after having enjoyed the sequel (Dracula, Prince of Darkness) a lot. For some reason, it disappointed me as it did to you, and it was only after many viewings that I started to appreciate it. Perhaps it happened because it was much more subtle and balanced than Prince of Darkness why it took me sometime to like it. In most of the film Dracula is not physically present, that was something that bothered me. But it is great to feel that although you don't see him he is somewhere near.

The prologue is wonderfully elegant, and the ending dynamic and exciting. And in the middle, I love the night scenes when Dracula visits Lucy, and the ones with the female vampire in it. Now I see as obvious that it is a superior film than its sequel, and I love the fact that, even when most of the action is rewritten, it is the film that best translates the essence of Stoker's novel. Christopher Lee always complains about the fact that Dracula has never been filmed as Stoker wrote it, but to me this is absurd: Stoker wrote to be read, not to be seen.

Also, what I love about this film is that it feels very economical: a short running time and a style that is as precise as elegant and full of subtleties. I suspect all of this is thanks to Fisher's direction (Sangster was a mediocre screenwriter, and, as far as I know, the best scenes of this film are merit of the director and his actors who slightly modified what was on the original script).

I would recommend to you Fisher's The Brides of Dracula, to get a different perspective on the same subject. It is a very different film, riskier, less canonical, and also weirder and faulty in its internal logic and structure. However, in terms of expressive quality, I would rank it on par with this one.

[deleted]

[deleted]

I just watched it today for the first time and I share your opinion. I don't know if it's my age (I'm 28), but I was completely unimpressed with it. Found myself wishing it to be over half way through. It didn't feel atmospheric al all to me, I didn't particularly care for the music and the characters and the story lacked depth in my opinion.



...What right does my head have to call itself Me?

Yeah, I saw it as a kid on TV and so now it's more of a nostalgia thing. I love Lee as Dracula (and everything else he's ever done) and found it scary then. I think if you're brought up on the realism and gore of the 80's and 90's horror films, this could be viewed as boring, sadly.

Open the door for Mr. Muckle!!

I then realized all the people who loved it are only the people who grew up watching them. I don't know anyone my age (34) who is into them.

For me it is easily the lest compelling Hammer Dracula and the leas interesting even semi adaptation of the Novel.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"