IT CAME FROM THE BOTTOM SHELF!

Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel, Dracula, has been adapted for the screen too many times to count.  There have been many memorable versions, including F.W. Murnau’s unauthorized silent adaptation, Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922), Tod Browning’s stodgy early talkie, Dracula (1931), which featured Bela Lugosi’s iconic performance, Werner Herzog’s hypnotic 1979 Nosferatu remake, and Francis Ford Coppola’s more-faithful-than-most-but-still-pretty-unfaithful Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992). However, in my opinion, the best and most entertaining of the Dracula films is Terence Fisher’s Dracula, made for the U.K.’s Hammer Studios in 1958 and released in the U.S. under the title of Horror of Dracula, to avoid confusion with the still circulating Bela Lugosi version.

Basking in the success of Terence Fisher’s The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), Hammer Studios hoped to repeat the boffo box office by bringing their version of Bram Stoker’s bitey Count to the screen.  Due to the meager financial resources of the studio, they had screenwriter Jimmy Sangster simplify the narrative of Stoker’s story, eliminating some characters and greatly changing others, while setting all of the action within a few miles, rather than hopping the globe.  What was left was a “bare bones” Dracula that stripped the work down to its creepy essence.  In a tight 82 minutes, the narrative grabbed audiences in a grip of dread and never let go.  Adding to the audience appeal, it was the first Dracula film shot in color, including spatterings of vibrantly red blood; and it was the first to star 6’5” Christopher Lee, who would play the Count more times on film than any other actor (eight leading performances and a handful of uncredited cameos).  Lee’s Count was more sexually threatening than Lugosi’s version–at times seductive, then suddenly, savagely animalistic.  Audiences ate it up.

Christopher Lee performance continues to make a great impression when viewed today, especially when you consider that his appearances within Horror of Dracula only add up to seven minutes of screen time and 13 lines of dialogue.  However, the main reason I have such a deep affection for this film is the lead performance of Peter Cushing in the role of Doctor Van Helsing.  I’m sorry, Edward Von Sloan, Anthony Hopkins, Herbert Lom, Laurence Oliver, and others that have played the part of Dracula’s great adversary, Cushing absolutely owns the role for me.  Cushing’s Van Helsing is a hero for the ages.  Serious, studied, cunning, and athletic, his Van Helsing can believably trade blows with Dracula (and with other undead menaces in future films in the series).  Peter Cushing never “winked” at the audience.  He bought a seriousness and believability to whatever material he was given, no matter how silly that material could sometimes be.  Luckily, Horror of Dracula was one of the best scripts that Peter Cushing was ever given, so when matched with the actor’s authenticity, the film really shines.

For fans of film horror, the “Hammer Studios” name almost always guaranteed a good time, but Horror of Dracula ranks in the very top tier of the company’s output.  Many would rank it as the studio’s best.  Sixty years after it’s original release, Horror of Dracula is still an effective chiller that outshines subsequent film adaptations of Stoker’s novel.  It remains a bloody good time.

UK/C-82m./Dir: Terence Fisher/Wr: Jimmy Sangster/Cast: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling, Carol Marsh, Olga Dickie, Valerie Gaunt, Janina Faye, Barbara Archer, Charles Lloyd Pack, George Merritt, George Woodbridge, George Bensen, Miles Malleson, Geoffrey Bayldon

For Fans of: Horror of Dracula sits at the mid-way point between the atmospheric, classic monster movies of Universal Studios and the more explicit scarefests of today.  Consequently, it tends to appeal to fans of both types of horror.  If you like horror films, you’ll almost certainly want to add Horror of Dracula to your home library.

Video: Horror of Dracula has had a checkered history on home video, but no one should hesitate to purchase the Warner Archive Collection’s Blu-ray release.  As the first U.S. Blu-ray release of the title, it is a huge jump in quality over prior DVD releases.  Based on the 2007 restoration by the British Film Institute, the Warner disc is sharp and detailed, apart from a few shots that have inherent softness in the original cinematography.  The aspect ratio has also been opened up from the rather cramped-looking DVD, and appears to be the proper framing.

Many complained that the color palette of the BFI’s restoration was too cool and bluish, and a prior British Blu-ray retained the BFI’s cold look.  Warner Brothers has adjusted the color timing to bring back the vibrancy of the original Technicolor release.  However, the Warner disc is also said to be darker than its UK counterpart.  Your preference as to the color scheme and brightness of the presentation will be a matter of taste.  With the Warner Archive disc, you lose a little detail in the shadows of the castle halls and nighttime scenes, but the colors are more natural overall, and the reds really pop (which is a plus for a vampire film).  Personally, I found the Warner Archive Blu-ray presentation quite pleasing.

It also should be noted that the Warner Archive Blu-ray is based on the original British theatrical release of the film, including the original title, Dracula, rather than Horror of Dracula.  Some European releases of the film on disc have included a few extra seconds of alternative footage during the ending disintegration scene from a battered Japanese release print.  Since these few shots were of lower picture quality and were not part of the original theatrical release, Warner Brothers has opted not to include them within the film.  I agree with that decision, but it would have been nice if the alternative footage had been included within the bonus features.  As it is, the only extra is the Universal Studios trailer.

You can purchase the disc directly from the Warner Archive or from other online retailers (Amazon link below).

Streaming: At the time this review was written, Horror of Dracula was not streaming on any of the subscription services, but it is avaible for purchase or rental in digital form from Amazon and other outlets.

More to Explore: Horror of Dracula was followed by several inferior sequels.  However, the first sequel, Brides of Dracula (1960), in which Peter Cushing returned as Van Helsing but Christopher Lee’s Dracula did not, is almost as good as the original.  Brides of Dracula is one of the titles included in the Blu-ray set Hammer Horror 8-Film Collection.

Trivia: James Bernard, the composer of the score, revealed that the repeating three notes in the main title theme were meant to musically reflect the three syllables in “Drac-u-la!”  Since I heard that revelation, I feel compelled to sing along with the instrumental theme.

For More Info: There are several excellent histories of Hammer Studios in book form.  Best of all, but out-of-print, are Wayne Kinsey’s two volumes, Hammer Films: The Bray Studio Years and Hammer Films: The Elstree Studio Years.  In addition, Hammer Films: An Exhaustive Filmography by Tom Johnson and Deborah Del Vecchio is a excellent film guide.