The only thing Christopher Lee showed us in this film is that he can literally count! His dialog was beyond ludicrous! Ralph Bates was annoyingly hammy and not frightening. The main Hammer girl in this, Alice, is dull. And why in the hell does there always seem to be a character named Paul in the Hammer draculas? Always PAUL, PAUL, PAUL, and friggin' PAUL!!!
And then there is the title...
This one is worse than the horrible Hammer entry where Dracula is trying to unleash a biological weapon on the world? Worse than Dracula 1972 AD? I beg to differ.
shareHonestly, in my opinion the worst Hammer Dracula is Horror of Dracula, it's presented as an adaptation of the Novel and as such it is the worst of all of them, even the Universal film was closer, and and Besides Lee and Chushing no one gives memorable performances.
I enjoyed this film as well as Satanic Rites of Dracula. 72 AD was hilarious.
"SLaughter is the best medicine"
I like the period costumes and stuff, but the actual film is pretty bad. And the girls in the trance like state in dracuals presence was quite annoying. Yes sir no sir three bags full sire. Doing everything dracuala wants and having a completer personality transplant was corny.
shareIgnoring THE LEGEND OF THE 7 GOLDEN VAMPIRES, I vote for DRACULA A.D.1972 as the worst, with TASTE coming in second. One look at Christopher Neame's annoying "Johnny Alucard" (how'd they ever come up with that one?) is reason enough to dismiss it, despite the sterling return of Peter Cushing's Van Helsing, and the shameful waste of Christopher Lee's presence, less than 10 minutes screen time, just as in TASTE. SCARS OF DRACULA gives Lee the most screen time of all the other Hammer entries, and is the last decent one.
"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond
I didnt like the way the lead girl was in Dracualas spell so blatantly, to the point you no longer cared for her. As she was basically behaving like a vampiress.
Should have played it like scars of dracula, or dracula has risen.
I admit this film has the worst opening scene (and ending) of any Hammer Dracula film that had come before, and some overblown silly acting and stupid characters. This isn't counting the opening scene of the second film which was a recap of the end of the first film and so can't be called an opening scene, really.
Christopher Lee as Dracula has a lot stronger presence here than in any of the prior films (he doesn't have many moments of being looking stupid and ineffective) and his gal-pals are all strong as well. Dracula speaks (unlike the prior film) and the plot isn't too predictable and well worn (like the first film). Dracula seems a little less feral in this one, though.
Clearly you've never seen Satanic Rites of Dracula. That one makes this and Dracula 1972 AD look fantastic.
I actually quite like Satanic Rites of Dracula.
"SLaughter is the best medicine"
Ugh, I hate that one. I think it's actually the only Hammer horror film to have lapsed into public domain.
I enjoy it, I can't take any of them to seriously, and I enjoyed the interesting spy film like aspect.
"SLaughter is the best medicine"
To me Satanic Rites of Dracula was dull and drawn out. The only good thing abou tit was the idea of Dracula running a corporation but the TV show Dracula: The series did it better. Dracula's motivations felt confused and actually kind of psychic, including his fake accent that he tried to deter Van Helsing with. He never came off so incompetent. Also the story was very drawn out and incoherent. Why did he keep female vampires chained in his basement with weapons that could kill them in easy reach?
Taste the blood of Dracula at least had some sympathetic characters and Gothic atmosphere.
I liked this entry enough, but the ending drove me batty (har har). Dracula may as well have slipped on a banana peel and prat-fell to his death. Seriously, Drac just falls over and dies basically; I thought it was silly.
If you are a 100% fan of Judas Priest, proudly copy this and make it your signature!
Seriously, Drac just falls over and dies basically; I thought it was silly.
Yeah, I know, but it's just the way the scene was edited that made it look hilarious.
If you are a 100% fan of Judas Priest, proudly copy this and make it your signature!
Not by a long chalk. The Seven Golden Vampires takes that award, hands down. This one isn't the best, but it's better than TSGV or even Scars of Dracula.
shareDracula didn't just fall over and die, nor did the sunlight get him in this one. He died because he was in a consecrated place and heard the Lord's Prayer. It's the same reason the cross repells him and holy water burns him. He can't stand holy Christian things. They are symbols of "good". These things should kill him (you may disagree if you are irreligious), so it's one of my favorite Dracula death scenes because I am religious. The religiousness appeals to me better in this movie than say, that in Prince of darkness because I'm not Catholic.
I like all the Dracula movies but the one I like the least for Lee may be Taste the Blood because he has the least amount of camera time. I find Lee always did great with what he was given (or in the case of Prince of Darkness, what he accepted).
Wonderfully perverted film sullied only by a weak ending. I'd argue that this is the best entry in the series for it's strong cast and effective use of location shooting -- to say nothing of its exploration of the nasty underbelly of sexuality (unlike most latter day vampire films in which the Count is portrayed as a tragic, romantic hero).
ekm
Writer/Director -- ROULETTE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294794/combined
It's a shame that Hammer never did a "proper" adaptation of the novel, because after reading the novel, I'm convinced that Christopher Lee is the only actor who ever captured perfectly the totally EVIL BASTARD in the book!
It's so bizarre how both HORROR OF DRACULA and DRACULA PRINCE OF DARKNESS are, in their own ways, "adaptations" of the book. Took me a long time to realize this (that D:POD acts as both a sequel to HOD and an adaptation, so many scenes in it are inspired by the novel). Lee did get a change to do the novel on film, in Jess Franco's 1970 film, but that was let down tragically on the budget, script and especially, the technical level (sound, lighting, camerawork, editing).
The real tragedy is that Lee wasn't in the BBC's 1977 version. So much about that film is near-perfect, and Lee being in it might have made it more so. (All the same, what Louis Jourdan did-- his portrayal being perhaps the biggest deviation in that film from the book-- was remarkable, and unforgetable.)
I agree completely with the first paragraph. Lee is the best Dracula of the lot. I've seen all the others - Jourdan, Palance, Lugosi, Langella, Oldman and even Paul Naschy's take (which is very different indeed). I've also seen the two versions of NOSFERATU, but I look upon them differently. Max Shreck's Count Orlok is not Dracula at all in my eyes, but he is a highly interesting character in his own right and I felt a bit let down that Murnau didn't realise this and take his story, which was already different, all the way. As for the remake of NOSFERATU, the one with Klaus Kinsky, I find that one to be really awful indeed. I find it awful not least because it's very, very slow paced and boring, but also because it wants to have its cake and eat it - the producers clearly wanted the character to be seen as Dracula but make him look just like Orlok. It was a complete waste in my opinion. I like Kinsky in some of his other roles but he was seriously miscast in that one.
DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS is my least favourite in Hammer's Dracula series - a sadly flat picture in my opinion. I do like the alternate adaptation of the novel that HORROR OF DRACULA is, though. In particular, Cushing's interpretation of Van Helsing is far more memorable than the others who played the role. And I like it greatly for what it is, please don't misunderstand me as I make my next comment. When I think about the best Van Helsing when seeking an interpretation that closest fits the novel, my favourite is John Arthur Olsen, who played the part in a Full Motion Video game in the early 1990s called DRACULA UNLEASHED. In that game, too, are my favourite portrayals of the Stoker's other characters - Arthur Holmwood, Jonathan Harker, Mina Harker, Dr. Seward and Renfield. All you need to play the game is a DVD player.
Moving on to Jess Franco's adaptation I would add one thing to the comments you have made. Lee's interpretation of Dracula in that movie enabled him to play the role as he wanted but, and this a big but, Dracula had completely lost the sense of total evil you mentioned in your first paragraph. Lee's performance was flat in some parts as well. The sheer energy and intensity he puts into the Hammer Draculas was absent from Franco's version. It's a shame because I like some of Franco's other flicks - SHE KILLED IN ECSTASY (my favourite), VAMPYROS LESBOS and DRACULA'S DAUGHTER.
I like the BBC mini-series version of Dracula with Louis Jourdan. I accept Jourdan's alternate portrayal of the Count as creepy and dangerous in a subtle manner with a tendency towards total arrogance. It was interesting, entirely memorable, certainly re-watchable and makes Jourdan my second favourite Dracula. I agree that Lee should have been cast in this version. Indeed I couldn't have put it better myself.
On a final note, I would say Susan Penhaligon, in the BBC version, is the best actress to portray Lucy Westenra.
The only film in the series I have yet to see is The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires, but out of the ones I've seen I love them all. I have made it a tradition to start watching the entire series once every year and each movie is enjoyable in it's own way. So much so that I am disappointed whenever the series is over and want to go right back to Horror of Dracula and start all over again. I got a copy of Seven Golden Vampires last week so I will be able to watch it this time and am sure I will enjoy it as well. That being said, I really enjoy Taste the Blood of Dracula. I thought Ralph Bates seemed genuinely sinister as Lord Courtley and was a very evil character. I do agree that the film would've still worked even if Dracula wasn't in it, but since Christopher Lee is such a brilliant actor I am glad he was. I don't see what's to dislike in this film or any of the films in the series for that matter. I enjoy them all in their own ways.
Death lives in the Vault of Horror!
[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree The Satanic Rites of Dracula is the worst of the Christopher Lee Dracula's. Dracula 1972 A.D. the next worst. I don't like the updated ones, the period pieces are the best, Dracula wasn't meant to be in the 20th century.
shareIt is Hammer classic but it had flaws. Visuals look atmospheric, the scenery, photography and costumes are beautiful, love theme by James Bernard is gorgeous, too, and Dracula sits to these surroundings like a glove. One problem - the story is hampered by cliched and dull Victorian family melodrama, taken unbelievably seriously by lot of people. These teens are oppressed by older generation who likes booze and naked breasts, are EVULZ and must die. Young people kill heroically! Heroine Alice begins blandly sweet, then her inner depravity is released by Dracula. In the end I hoped she would have died.
Both 'Horror of Dracula' and 'Dracula - Prince of Darkness' are the two best Hammer Dracula films IMO.
"Life IS pain highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something".
My worst would be DRACULA A.D. 1972 except for the Victorian prologue scene. Once it shifts to modern-day England, it falls apart: that awful rock band, the dated costumes. . . I can never make it through it. SATANIC RITES. . . is marginally better thanks to the idea of Dracula as the head of a corporation. I love how TASTE. . . picks up right where DRACULA HAS RISEN. . . leaves off.
Better Living Through Godzilla