IMDb user comments for
Dracula (1958)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 11:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

104 comments in total

---

28 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
The Best Vampire Film of all time!!, 19 February 1999

Author: Jonathan Malcolm Lampley (jonathan.lampley@nashville.com) from Nashville, TN USA

Terence Fisher's DRACULA (HORROR OF DRACULA in the USA; 1958) is the best vampire film of all time. No other picture combines the right amounts of horror, humor, action, and eroticism. Britain's Hammer Films is legendary for their horror films--this is the best of them all. Although quite different from the book in many ways, I feel this picture captures the spirit of Stoker's work better than the more literal adaptations. Everything works here--Fisher's tight, crisp pacing, James Bernard's throbbing, full-blooded score, and especially the acting. Christopher Lee inherits the role of Dracula from Lugosi and makes it his own--he still holds the record for most film performances as the Count. Peter Cushing is the definitive Dr. Van Helsing--by turns tough and tender, his interpretation far outshines those of far better known actors--Anthony Hopkins and Laurence Olivier played the part later, but their performances were totally inferior to Cushing's. And how about Michael Gough--Alfred in the recent BATMAN films--as Holmwood? He's a treat in his own right! Lugosi came first, and later films spent more money; however, the best combination of all elements is in HORROR OF DRACULA. It is required viewing for all vampire fans.

---

19 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Lee's Dracula reigns supreme!, 6 August 2004

Author: rams_lakers from Colorado

Hammer's Dracula, the first Dracula film to incorporate fangs, blood, and red eyes, brings the best Dracula to the screen - Christopher Lee.

I first saw this on TV at home on Thursday 5pm on a channel that featured some classics. I also remember seeing War of the Worlds and others every Thursday. Each time they repeated it, I was there watching it. I just bought this DVD for my collection and the color and quality is awesome.

In Stoker's book Mina Murray is Harker's fiancé and Lucy Westenra was Arthur Holmwood's fiancé. Despite these changes the story holds together nicely. Sangster manages to avoid having Dracula turn to a bat to make the character more believable. In Stoker's book the Lucy character dies and returns as a child-lusting vampire so Van Helsing and Holmwood stake her as shown in the movie.

Trivia: Lee said the fangs he wore were easy to speak with but not eat. The contacts he wore were very painful and made him teary eyed and his vision a bit blurry.

There are some scenes that were deleted. One was of the impaled Harker in the early stages of decomposition which was removed by the British censor when it was released in English speaking countries. Surprising because it was tame compared to other scenes. Another scene that was removed by the same censor was Dracula's stages of decomposing during his death scene. This scene was reportedly left intact in foreign speaking countries and the rumor is Warner does not consider the scenes to be worth pursuing. What U.S. audiences see is the jump to the final stage of dissolving. Lee says they were kept in for the Far East parts of the world because they were considered to be too gruesome in those days. There are stills floating around of them both. A solid 9 out of 10, this remains the best Dracula film ever made. Yes, much better than the overrated "Bram Stoker's Dracula."

---

22 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Is This The Best Dracula Film? Maybe!, 14 March 2006

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States

I'm not a big fan of horror films but I was very impressed with this one, titled "Horror Of Dracula." (For some reason, it's just called "Dracula" here on the IMDb site.

This is a solid re-telling of the Dracula story with some legitimate thrills provided to the viewer along with pretty photography and sets and a tasteful lack of blood.

I'm curious how this looks and sounds on DVD. Story-wise, they might have embellished some of the action scenes and made Dracula a little more powerful. (I can't see him feeling a regular human being which he did here in the end.) Other than that, it's a well-done movie with no exaggerated characters, nice colors, no problem understanding accents....one of the better Dracula films ever made, just maybe the best. It's that good!

It also features two of the best classic 'horror" actors of all-time: Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Highly recommended, particularly for people who might be hesitant to watch a "Dracula" film. I'll think you'll like this version.

---

17 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-
Awesome!!!!!, 2 January 2004
Author: (callanvass@hotmail.com) from victoria b.c canada

awesome Dracula flick possibly the best Dracula version ever made it has a fair amount of blood Tremendous acting with a well done script this has a lot of intelligent Conversations and one hell of a cool finale this is an engrossing time that grips you and never lets go this is a true classic and a must own for any horror fan ****1/2 out of 5

---

11 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
First Color Version Of Dracula Is An Excellent Horror Film, 31 December 2004

Author: Hal-900 from WA, USA

Hammer's Dracula is an energetic, intense, very cinematic adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic tale. The film does not waste a second, condensing the original story in a very effective manner, and inventing a few new twists in the process. Many years ago, when I first watched the film, it disappointed me. A second viewing did the trick and the movie's exuberant (if a bit simplistic) approach grabbed me by the neck (pun intended). It is not without flaws (I still think Christopher Lee's Dracula is a mere cipher), but essentially, this is a story told with passion. Peter Cushing is definitely the best movie Van Helsing we have (resolute, intelligent, compassionate, fearless, etc.). You can sense Cushing's intensity even when he is sitting quietly on a chair! Not sure why I did not like it the first time, but now I love it and I think it is one of Hammer's best movies, somewhere between "The Devil Rides Out" and "Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter."

---

10 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
A Cross You Need To Bear!, 9 August 2000
Author: BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC

An outstanding film on all accounts! This is far and away a better vampire(Dracula) film then the Universal film because of its action and pace, its acting, and its rich musical score and lush cinematography. Now I like the old Universal film a lot, but this one just seems to have so much more blood coursing through its veins, so to speak. The story is a variation on the novel, and the Universal film is actually much more faithful, but Horror of Dracula compensates by having the core of the film centered around two polarized opposing forces of good and evil. Christopher Lee is excellent as Dracula, bringing to the character a genuine menace and some sophistication mixed with brutality(lacking from Lugosi's performance). The real star, however, at least for me is the venerable Peter Cushing in the role of Professor Van Helsing. Cushing's character is a man single of purpose in his quest to rid the world of Dracula. Cushing brings a great deal of charm, grace, and incredible professionalism to his role. Other performers are quite good. Michael Gough is very good in his role, and Miles Malleson is very humorous in his minute role of an undertaker. Director Terrence Fisher deserves most of the credit for the success of this film and the way vampires were to be treated afterward in film. Fisher directs with precision and creates a rich tapestry of vibrant colors and wonderful sets with his discerning eye for detail. This film's importance cannot be overlooked as it revolutionized a whole sub-genre of horror...and brought us two wonderful actors....Lee and Cushing...together in two of their greatest roles. That is enough for me!

---

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Bram Stoker's classic gets a makeover....Hammer style!, 19 December 2004

Author: The_Void from Beverley Hills, England

Often regarded as the highlight of Hammer horror's oeuvre, The Horror of Dracula stands up today as a fresh and inventive take on what is maybe the best story ever written. Hammer is a studio that has had many a fine hour, and although this is one indeed; I think that there are several other films from their ranks that just top it. Just, being the operative word as this is certainly up there with the best of them. As you might expect, the story follows that of Bram Stoker's original novel; with a young man travelling to Dracula's castle, and not returning. This attracts the attentions of Professor Abraham Van Helsing; an authority in the field of vampirism who then sets out to slay the malevolent fiend that is the source of all the foul play in the movie; Dracula himself.

Although this is based on the classic story, Hammer very much makes it their own. Of course, the campy horror styling that that the studio has become famous for features strongly in the movie and serves in giving it that classic Hammer feel. Furthermore, this movie features both of Hammer's greatest stars; Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Christopher Lee may be no Bela Lugosi, but if there was anyone other than Bela Lugosi that I would want to play Dracula; Christopher Lee is that man. He isn't actually in it that much, but the moments when he is are the best in the movie. He has an incredible amount of screen presence, and all of that is transferred into the character of Dracula. In a similar way, Peter Cushing plays Van Helsing. Like Lee, Cushing has buckets of screen presence, but it's all in a very different style. While Lee is a defined evil, Cushing is more subdued, which allows him to adequately play the hero as well as well as he plays the villain. I've got to be honest, I prefer Cushing in the bad guy role; but he still makes an excellent hero.

Terence Fisher, one of Hammer's premier directors, directs the film and does a great job with it. The atmosphere of the Gothic period setting is spot on, and a constantly foreboding, and intriguing atmosphere is created throughout. The way that the smoke drifts across the graveyard in the movie is among the most atmospheric things Hammer ever shot. Dracula is a great story, and this Hammer yarn more than does it justice.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Hammer's Masterpiece, 1 November 2007

Author: kevin_crighton (kevincrighton@btinternet.com) from Scotland

Hammer made several classic horror movies : The Curse Of Frankenstein, The Curse Of The Werewolf, Dracula - Prince Of Darkness, The Devil Rides Out, She, The Quatermass trilogy amongst others. However for me, their first Dracula movie is a true horror masterpiece.

Although based on the novel by Bram Stoker, the movie doesn't even try to adapt the book. Jimmy Sangster simply took the characters and events he needed, and went off and did his own movie, and it works brilliantly.

Jonathon Harker arrives at Castle Dracula under the guise of being Dracula's new librarian. Actually however, he's there to destroy the vampire. When he fails, Dracula wrecks vengeance on Harker's fiancé and family, while Van Helsing arrives in the hope of ending what Harker couldn't....

As I said, nothing like the novel but it doesn't matter. This is the best Dracula movie ever made.

To begin with, the set design by Bernard Robinson is superb. His design of the castle is fantastic. Jack Asher, the cinematographer does a stunning job lighting the movie, especially Dracula's first appearance. The music by James Bernard, taking it's cues from the title, Dracula, is wonderful, bringing excitement, dread, fear and everything you could ask for.

Terence Fisher, Hammer's most important director, keeps things going at a brisk pace, staging some brilliant set-pieces. Fisher made most of the early horror classics: The Curse Of Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Curse Of The Werewolf. He also made many more movies for Hammer, but this is his finest movie.

Where Hammer got lucky was Christopher Lee. His Dracula performance is gripping. He's charming when he needs to be - watch the brilliance of his first appearance. He appears at the stop of the stairs looking menacing, thanks to the lighting and music, then walks down the stairs and introduces himself! Brilliant.

But Lee is scary and terrifying as he needs to be, when stalking Mina and Lucy, but also almost passionate with them. And he proves a worthy adversary for Van Helsing....

...which brings me to Peter Cushing. Simply put the best Van Helsing on screen, played by the best actor ever in the horror genre. Cushing brings compassion to Van Helsing (watch the scene with the child in the graveyard) but also determination and obsession at ridding the world of evil. Even though he made a lot of horror movies in his career, and thus is somewhat under-rated as an actor, he never gave a bad performance and here like Lee he is at the top of his game. it's no wonder that they both became like a double-act in horror movies!! Although by todays standard, some of the acting may appear wooden, or 'ham(!)' and some of the effects, especially in the movie's stunning climax may have dated the movie as a whole has not.

It's still a battle between good v evil, which reaches a climax in a brilliant finale in the castle as Darcula and Van Helsing face each other. If you watch carefully, you'll see it's Van Helsing's knowledge that wins out, not strength.

When I saw this a child it scared the hell out of me. Time and repeated showings may have weakened the scare factor of this movie, but this is still,and will always be, my favorite horror movie.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
An actor's treasure and horror fan's delight, 2 October 2006

Author: jackiedan from USA, baby!

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Few things in modern horror films impress me these days. Special effects dominate story and all the actors looks like they aren't old enough to drive. Today's horror film is very hard to take seriously.

"Horror of Dracula" is one of the best examples of what horror films once were (and should be now). Well paced and rather unpredictable at times, this version of Dracula is one of my favorites.

What tops this film for me is the cast. I'm so used to seeing the actors that occupy movies today that I forgot what real adults look like. Christopher Lee is one of the most imposing figures to walk in a dark cloak and Peter Cushing's steely determination makes him one of the most understated action heroes in film history. Yes, I said "action hero." The final five minutes of the film more than cements this. There are no ridiculous fight scenes with punches and kicks but a manic struggle to the death that seems brutal and real. Cushing's Van Helsing is the only one I've ever seen so bad-ass that Dracula RUNS AWAY whenever he sees him.

A great movie. Enjoy it for the beautiful piece of craftsmanship that it is.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
The Best One on the Count, 20 September 2006

Author: ragosaal from Argentina

"Horror of Dracula" was released back in 1958 (that is nearly 50 years ago) when technical resources where much more limited than today. This established, it's my opinion that this film is the best on the devilish Count ever made.

Hammer's favorite director Terence Fisher builds a simple product but a very effective one, where tension is present all along, settings are well done, atmosphere is correct, music matches and the whole casting is adequate. It could be argued that the story doesn't follow exactly Bram Stoker's book, but since movies is images and not imagination it is acceptable to make concessions in order to improve at its most what you see, and Fisher surely gets the job done in this one.

The transformation of the vampire from a cold mannered sophisticated man to a raging brutal monster is really amazing if you consider the make up limitations back then. It also has to do with Cristopher Lee's outstanding screen presence and his undoubted ability to play evil characters (which he did a lot in his early days in movies). In fact he has not been matched by other fine actors who also wore the long black cape and the ring (among them Lon Chaney Jr, John Carradine, Frank Langella, Jack Palance, Gary Oldman or even Bela Lugosi). Lee still remains as the ultimate Dracula.

Peter Cushing (Professor Van Helsing) renders an intense and strong performance -as usual in him- as the man who chases the monster to release men from his terrible menace. Michael Gough is also precise and convincing as Arthur Holmwood whose wife (Melissa Stribling) and sister (Carol Marsh) become Dracula's victims.

The final battle between Lee and Cushing at he Count's castle is masterly handled, thrilling and has a big impact too. I read somewhere that it was Cushing's idea to include a face to face combat instead of the rather dull death of the vampire in his coffin as it is described by Bram Stoker; if this is so the actor helped a lot in improving the film.

The sequels Hammer produced starring Lee as the Count -although probably entertaining for fans- never matched this first one; actually no other Dracula movie did (including Francis Ford Coppola's lavish and expensive version of the early 90's).

"Horror of Dracula" has all a horror film requires and is Dracula's best ever and one of the genre's best too.

---

---

Page 1 of 11:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history