MovieChat Forums > Dracula (1958) Discussion > Very disappointing...doesn 't hold a can...

Very disappointing...doesn 't hold a candle to Lugosi

posted 14 years ago by CyberGhostface-1
75 replies | jump to latest

I'm a big fan of Dracula (moreso the novel than any of the films) but until today I had yet to see any of Lee's films. I have heard so many good things about Lee as Dracula, how he's better than Lugosi, etc. While I'm not exactly a fan of Lee, from what little I've seen of him elsewhere, I've found him to be very effective, menacing and IMO ideal for the character.

So I finally saw Horror of Dracula today, and I felt...that's it? Really? I found it to be very disappointing and boring even (and no, not because it's "old"--I love Nosferatu, for example).

The story felt really bowdlerized. Where was Renfield, for example? Such a great character. Or the three brides being narrowed down to one bride? And while I thought the concept of Harker being onto Dracula from the getgo to be interesting at first (definitely didn't expect that), that really took away the creeping sense of dread in the novel and in the Lugosi film. The earlier scenes where Harker slowly pieces together that he's trapped and that Dracula isn't human are some of the best scenes in the original story, but they're altogether glossed over. I get that there's only so much you can show in a film, but some of the most iconic elements were completely discarded with. And given that Hammer is apparently famous for lots of blood in their films, I found the film to be pretty tame.

The fact that Lee appeared so little didn't help at all. Now, in the book, Dracula only appears in the beginning and then disappears only to pop up sporadically until the end, but his presence was still felt throughout the story. Here I almost forgot he was in the film.

IMO, the Universal Dracula is fairly disappointing by today's standards (can't be helped though given the censors back then) but Lugosi makes the film worth watching. He is Dracula. To me, Lee doesn't come close. And maybe this is more due to his old age, but I've found Lee's deeper voice today to be much more threatening and melodious than how he sounded here (when he spoke at all). He was much more scarier and imposing as Saruman in LOTR.

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

I'm a big fan of Dracula (moreso the novel than any of the films) but until today I had yet to see any of Lee's films.

That's a bit of an oxymoron.

I have heard so many good things about Lee as Dracula, how he's better than Lugosi, etc.

He is.

While I'm not exactly a fan of Lee, from what little I've seen of him elsewhere, I've found him to be very effective, menacing and IMO ideal for the character.

He was. He has more imposing menace than any other actor who has played Dracula. His sheer height domination over every other actors in the same shot helps a great deal here.

So I finally saw Horror of Dracula today, and I felt...that's it? Really? I found it to be very disappointing and boring even (and no, not because it's "old"--I love Nosferatu, for example).

Boring? It's actually quite fast paced and crams quite a lot in for 80 minutes. The Dracula novel isn't exactly full of action and excitement. Indeed a great deal of it is tedious and slow in the middle.

The story felt really bowdlerized.

It was. Due mostly to budget and time constraints. Hammer did very very well on very very little.

The book itself was overly superfluous and didn't need to be 400 pages plus.

Where was Renfield, for example? Such a great character.

Personally I have always felt the Renfield character to be unneeded and was complete padding for the story in the first place. I like the fact that this superflous padding character was ommited from Hammer's films.

Or the three brides being narrowed down to one bride?

Doesn't really 'need' 3 brides though does it?

And while I thought the concept of Harker being onto Dracula from the getgo to be interesting at first (definitely didn't expect that), that really took away the creeping sense of dread in the novel and in the Lugosi film.

Well it wasn't really trying to be the Lugosi film or the novel. It tried to tell the basic story while being different.

The sense of dread comes after Harker sees he has been bitten and he knows its all over for him.

The earlier scenes where Harker slowly pieces together that he's trapped and that Dracula isn't human are some of the best scenes in the original story, but they're altogether glossed over.

No they are just changed. Hammer never attempted to simply copy the book. Good thing too otherwise it would have been 4 hours long with 2 hours of tedium in the middle.

I get that there's only so much you can show in a film, but some of the most iconic elements were completely discarded with.

Well we have Harker meeting Dracula at the castle, we have Dracula moving to a town/city, we have Lucy being killed by Dracula, turning into a vampire and then being killed by Van Helsing, we have Dracula trying to then do the same to Mina and then we have Dracula being chased back to his castle where he himself is destroyed.

The basics of the novel are all there in the Hammer film.

And given that Hammer is apparently famous for lots of blood in their films, I found the film to be pretty tame.

You might have watched the US version. It was edited down and censored compared to the original British version which shows much more blood.

The fact that Lee appeared so little didn't help at all. Now, in the book, Dracula only appears in the beginning and then disappears only to pop up sporadically until the end,

There you go. When it stays close to the book you don't like it either hehe.

but his presence was still felt throughout the story.

No it wasn't really.

Here I almost forgot he was in the film.

Really? Even during the mid part where he visits Lucy and then tricks Mina?

IMO, the Universal Dracula is fairly disappointing by today's standards (can't be helped though given the censors back then) but Lugosi makes the film worth watching. He is Dracula.

So is Lee. To millions around the world in lots of different countries.

Dracula was very tall and thin and had fangs dripping blood and red eyes at times. That's the picture we have of Dracula in our minds and that has nothing to do with Lugosi.

To me, Lee doesn't come close.

Well you are in a minority. He is seen as superior to millions.

And maybe this is more due to his old age, but I've found Lee's deeper voice today to be much more threatening and melodious than how he sounded here (when he spoke at all). He was much more scarier and imposing as Saruman in LOTR.

Lee is more imposing in the later Dracula films made a decade after the Horror of Dracula. He is older and looks the part more in Prince of Darkness onwards. When he speaks in Scars of Dracula his voice is slower and deeper.

[–] CyberGhostface-1 14 years ago

That's a bit of an oxymoron.

Because...? I became a fan of Dracula solely through the book. I didn't need to watch any of the films to become one. Just like I recently became a fan of Frankenstein after reading the Mary Shelley novel, not by watching the films. (In both cases, I was familiar with the films beforehand, but I didn't really start to get into them until I read the books)

Worst-case scenario, that's like saying someone's not a fan of Tolkien unless they saw Peter Jackson's films even though they already read the book.

Personally I have always felt the Renfield character to be unneeded and was complete padding for the story in the first place. I like the fact that this superflous padding character was ommited from Hammer's films.

I found him to be one of the memorable characters from the book--he was sad, he was funny, he disgusting, he was scary. There was a definite hole where he should have been.

No they are just changed. Hammer never attempted to simply copy the book. Good thing too otherwise it would have been 4 hours long with 2 hours of tedium in the middle.

Perhaps, but the scenes in the beginning were some of the few scenes in the book that would have translated great to film as is. There is some baggage in the middle but the beginning worked.

Well you are in a minority. He is seen as superior to millions.

Somehow I doubt that the majority thinks Lee is better than Lugosi. I'm sure a lot do (not doubting at all that Lee's considered one of the best Dracula portrayals), but Lugosi set the standards in how the character is perceived and is considered to be the "definitive" version. (Unless you have some statistics to say otherwise...?)

Dracula was very tall and thin and had fangs dripping blood and red eyes at times. That's the picture we have of Dracula in our minds and that has nothing to do with Lugosi.

Speak for yourself. Even before watching the film, the Dracula that was in my mind was always Lugosi. And it's not as if Lee even established the concept of vampires with bloody fangs, etc--whereas much of the way Dracula is perceived in popular culture today has a lot to do with how Lugosi played him.

[–] chongajuly 14 years ago

Many people rightly consider "Horror of Dracula" as the greatest vampire movie ever made. Hammer had already energized the horror genre with 1957's "The Curse of Frankenstein," and had an even better grasp of Gothic terror with this feature, made just one year later, both in splendid color. Jimmy Sangster wrote his script for a specific number of characters and a limited budget, and his trimmings of both characters and incidents proved to be flawless. Peter Cushing was a huge fan and student of movie history, and he wondered if he should play Van Helsing as an elderly Dutch character, just as he was in the novel; fortunately, director Terence Fisher allowed everyone full reign to use their imagination, and Cushing believed it was best to play the role as himself, resulting in the most dynamic, athletic Van Helsing ever put on screen, a worthy adversary for a younger, stronger, more vicious Dracula than audiences had seen before. Being a huge fan of Errol Flynn and the derring do of old Hollywood, it was Cushing's idea to have his character jump onto the long table ,running to tear down the curtain, revealing the deadly sunlight to Dracula, then using two candlesticks to force the vampire to his doom. As to your comments about the lack of blood, perhaps your misconceptions about the Hammer product have proven to be the real disappointment, because this film, with its thrilling climax and superb James Bernard music score accentuating the action, has given more pleasure to worldwide audiences than any other Dracula film since the Lugosi original. And Hammer did use a Renfield-type character in 1965's "Dracula-Prince of Darkness," played by Thorley Walters, possibly deemed necessary to invite his master inside the monastery where he was held captive (this sequel was also scripted by Jimmy Sangster, using the pseudonym John Sansom). Rather than produce a worthy sequel to the 1931 classic, Universal opted to pay off Lugosi instead (incredibly, he made less from his original than from "Dracula's Daughter," from 3500 to 4000). At least he starred in a serious feature version, unlike John Carradine, who only did two supporting roles in the 1940's. No other actor except Christopher Lee has even played the role more than once. The list of viewers who were "disappointed" by "Horror of Dracula" will remain a very short one. Perhaps you were also disappointed in 1969's "Count Dracula," with Christopher Lee as an elderly vampire with white moustache, growing younger with each victim, Herbert Lomm as a curiously unmoving Van Helsing (sharing no scenes with Lee, and totally absent from the climax in Transylvania), and the wonderful Klaus Kinski, sadly wasted as a totally silent Renfield, who never leaves his asylum cell. That is the definition of disappointment, just ask Lee himself.

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

Many people rightly consider "Horror of Dracula" as the greatest vampire movie ever made. Hammer had already energized the horror genre with 1957's "The Curse of Frankenstein," and had an even better grasp of Gothic terror with this feature, made just one year later, both in splendid color. Jimmy Sangster wrote his script for a specific number of characters and a limited budget, and his trimmings of both characters and incidents proved to be flawless. Peter Cushing was a huge fan and student of movie history, and he wondered if he should play Van Helsing as an elderly Dutch character, just as he was in the novel; fortunately, director Terence Fisher allowed everyone full reign to use their imagination, and Cushing believed it was best to play the role as himself, resulting in the most dynamic, athletic Van Helsing ever put on screen, a worthy adversary for a younger, stronger, more vicious Dracula than audiences had seen before. Being a huge fan of Errol Flynn and the derring do of old Hollywood, it was Cushing's idea to have his character jump onto the long table ,running to tear down the curtain, revealing the deadly sunlight to Dracula, then using two candlesticks to force the vampire to his doom. As to your comments about the lack of blood, perhaps your misconceptions about the Hammer product have proven to be the real disappointment, because this film, with its thrilling climax and superb James Bernard music score accentuating the action, has given more pleasure to worldwide audiences than any other Dracula film since the Lugosi original. And Hammer did use a Renfield-type character in 1965's "Dracula-Prince of Darkness," played by Thorley Walters, possibly deemed necessary to invite his master inside the monastery where he was held captive (this sequel was also scripted by Jimmy Sangster, using the pseudonym John Sansom). Rather than produce a worthy sequel to the 1931 classic, Universal opted to pay off Lugosi instead (incredibly, he made less from his original than from "Dracula's Daughter," from 3500 to 4000). At least he starred in a serious feature version, unlike John Carradine, who only did two supporting roles in the 1940's. No other actor except Christopher Lee has even played the role more than once. The list of viewers who were "disappointed" by "Horror of Dracula" will remain a very short one. Perhaps you were also disappointed in 1969's "Count Dracula," with Christopher Lee as an elderly vampire with white moustache, growing younger with each victim, Herbert Lomm as a curiously unmoving Van Helsing (sharing no scenes with Lee, and totally absent from the climax in Transylvania), and the wonderful Klaus Kinski, sadly wasted as a totally silent Renfield, who never leaves his asylum cell. That is the definition of disappointment, just ask Lee himself.

Great post chongajuly.

It still amazes me that some folks prefer Lugosi. Lugosi's Dracula comes across as a creaky and staid old stage production. It even seems older than it's years when I compare it to the far superior Frankenstein from the same studio and same time frame. I almost fell asleep watching Lugosi's Dracula. Nosferatu is much more impressive and more 'watchable' and that's almost a decade older.

Lugosi's count is only really harked back to when some people want to spoof it or make jokes about it because it is SO easy to send up. You can't really do that with Lee's count because nothing about Lee's count was ridiculous and it is most definitely not open to being made fun of.

Of course the Hammer Dracula is also old as well but at least it still feels fresh, vibrant and it's actually exciting in places unlike the creaky old Lugosi film. Isn't the climax to the 1958 Dracula just about the most exciting ending to any Dracula film ever? Yes.

I also agree with you about the Jess Franco (non Hammer) film with Lee, Herbert Lom and Klaus Kinski. While it suffers from less than great middle section (and the Spanish location shooting doesn't help) it's quite true that Christopher Lee plays the count closer to the novel than any other adaptation before or since. He is actually superb as the Count in the initial meeting with Harker at the castle. He is almost Stoker's count to a tee there.

[–] chongajuly 14 years ago

Let me just state for the record that I saw Lugosi's Dracula first, and agree that his would be accepted as the "definitive" Dracula. That said, I also feel that Bela didn't have the opportunity to do a "definitive" screen version of the Stoker novel, since even he felt that its stage origins made for an unsatisfying motion picture experience, hoping for a chance to do a proper remake (he played an actual vampire only three times on screen, in the 1931 DRACULA, 1943's THE RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE, and 1948's ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN). Trying to compare these two actors from different eras is like choosing between apples and oranges, they're both good. And I enjoyed all the Universal Draculas (indeed, all the monsters), from Lon Chaney to John Carradine, but never cared for DRACULA'S DAUGHTER, despite the presence of Edward Van Sloan, who remains the only actor besides Peter Cushing to play Van Helsing more than once. Finally, while the 1931 DRACULA will continue to endure its share of negative criticism, the first 20 minutes at Dracula's castle still provide the same eerie feelings in me, and Lugosi's odd Hungarian accent, curious speech patterns (few horror stars could match him at pregnant pauses, examine THE INVISIBLE RAY and SON OF FRANKENSTEIN), and otherworldly appearance (despite the formal attire from the stage version), will no doubt continue to delight horror fans for decades to come. The classic films from any era may lose their ability to frighten, but remain entertaining regardless. Just don't ask me about any films since 1980, I'm a proud historian.

[–] CyberGhostface-1 14 years ago

Nosferatu is much more impressive and more 'watchable' and that's almost a decade older.

I'll agree there. Nosferatu's a better film.

Lugosi's count is only really harked back to when some people want to spoof it or make jokes about it because it is SO easy to send up. You can't really do that with Lee's count because nothing about Lee's count was ridiculous and it is most definitely not open to being made fun of.

People spoof Lugosi's Dracula because its such an iconic and memorable depiction that its easily recognizable, not because it's a joke.

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

People spoof Lugosi's Dracula because its such an iconic and memorable depiction that its easily recognizable, not because it's a joke.

No it's because it's easy to spoof. Count von Count from Sesame Street is a perfect example.

You just can't really spoof Chris Lee's Count. There isn't much to poke fun at.

[–] CathodeRayTubesRock 9 years ago

I think both movies are terrific. You guys are arguing about two very good movies and two very good actors.

On the debate of which is more iconic: If you google an image of Dracula - Bela Lugosi comes up before Lee. I think both were terrific. However, Lugosi was first and so I think more people associate him with Dracula. That might change as that generation dies out. In a few more years, Gary Oldman might spring to mind more than any other Dracula actor, simply because it is seen by the new generation.
- According to IMDB Dracula with Lugosi is rated 7.6 and HOD with Lee is rated 7.5: Almost identical. Gary Oldman's Drac is rated 7.5 too.

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!

[–] MaximRecoil (4058) 4 years ago

"No it's because it's easy to spoof."

Any character is easy to spoof, but the spoof doesn't work unless the audience is familiar with the character being spoofed.

"Count von Count from Sesame Street is a perfect example."

Count von Count is a ripoff of the stop-motion animated Dracula puppet from "Mad Monster Party?" (1967). They both have fangs, a monocle, pointed ears, and a sharply pointed nose with a triangular cross-section. Lugosi's Dracula had none of those things. Of course the voice actors for both puppets spoofed Lugosi's accent, but why wouldn't they? It's the correct accent for Dracula. Lugosi, like Dracula, was from Transylvania.

"You just can't really spoof Chris Lee's Count. There isn't much to poke fun at."

Of course you can. Just have him speak with an English accent (lol) and bare his teeth a lot. But then, Lee's Dracula isn't the iconic one, so it doesn't make much sense to spoof him.

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

Because...?

Big fan of Dracula who never caught any of the Chris Lee films before?

That's 'because' in my opinion.

I will give you a pass if you haven't been a big Dracula fan for long. In this day and age though with You Tube etc the first film at least is easy to find.

Worst-case scenario, that's like saying someone's not a fan of Tolkien unless they saw Peter Jackson's films even though they already read the book.

No, I would suggest it's like claiming you are a big fan of LOTR but hadn't yet seen the films.

I found him to be one of the memorable characters from the book--he was sad, he was funny, he disgusting, he was scary. There was a definite hole where he should have been.

I always disliked the Renfield character. Complete padding (one of the reason why the book ends up 400 pages plus) and if you took him away from the story it wouldn't really change it much. He was a pure superfluous character. He's not important like Dracula, Harker, Van Helsing or Mina are to the story.

He is disposable.

Having said that, a 'Renfield like' character appears in the follow up (Dracula Prince of Darkness). He's called Ludwig, he's mad, is locked up, eats flies and comes under Dracula's power to gain entry into the monestary. Thankfully Prince of Darkness doesn't dwell on him long.

Somehow I doubt that the majority thinks Lee is better than Lugosi.

Are you in America? Outside the USA there are many many places where Christopher Lee is seen as the definitive Dracula. Europe is one. I'm British. Lee is THE Dracula here. My girlfriend in German. Lee is THE Dracula there. My stepfather in from India. Lee is THE Dracula there (I have discussed this subject a few times over the years). The Hammer films were hugely popular across the world and seeing as Lee played the Count 8 times (more than any other actor to play the part on screen) his Count has been seen by more people in more countries than Lugosi's Count. Even the Hammer Dracula sequels were more famous and were more popular worldwide than the Universal Dracula sequels.

I'm sure a lot do (not doubting at all that Lee's considered one of the best Dracula portrayals), but Lugosi set the standards in how the character is perceived and is considered to be the "definitive" version.

Not where I live he isn't.

Are you telling me that most people think Dracula as being in black and white, with a round face with no fangs on show, no blood anywhere and no snarling menace to his character?

Tall thin imposing figure, fangs dripping blood, snarling menace, red eyes. That's Lee's portrayal. That's what we think of. That's not Lugosi.

(Unless you have some statistics to say otherwise...?)

You didn't give me any statistics proving your point first. It might well be the case in America but Amerca isn't the world. Indeed, Dracula isn't even an American character. He's European.

Speak for yourself.

I'll speak for the area of the world I live in.

Even before watching the film, the Dracula that was in my mind was always Lugosi.

You see Dracula in black and white? You see Dracula with no fangs dripping blood, no real menace, no imposing presence? Etc? Wow.

And it's not as if Lee even established the concept of vampires with bloody fangs, etc--whereas much of the way Dracula is perceived in popular culture today has a lot to do with how Lugosi played him.

As well as the things I already mentioned, the erotic nature of the Count was also established with Lee. That has carried through to today.

[–] CyberGhostface-1 14 years ago

You didn't give me any statistics proving your point first.

Fair enough, my apologies.

Indeed, Dracula isn't even an American character. He's European.

The Dracula in the book is Romanian. Bela Lugosi was Hungarian. Christopher Lee is British. If you want to get specific, Hungary shares a border with Romania and the country, and the town that Lugosi was born and raised in (Lugoj) is now part of Romania. At the time he made Dracula, Lugosi had a hard time speaking English. (And yes, you probably know this already, but I'm just putting out there) So I wouldn't call his depiction "American" even if the film was.

Are you telling me that most people think Dracula as being in black and white, with a round face with no fangs on show, no blood anywhere and no snarling menace to his character?

I think most people think of Lugosi as Dracula, yes. The movie didn't need blood to be effective and while I would prefer fangs, they aren't necessary all the time. And I didn't miss Dracula being a "snarling menace"--he's effective as being refined and gentlemanly.

You see Dracula in black and white?

No, but what's wrong with black and white?

You see Dracula with no fangs dripping blood

When I read the book, and Stoker describes Dracula with bloody fangs, I think of Dracula with bloody fangs. But my mind's eye is still of Lugosi.

no real menace, no imposing presence?

Matter of opinion, of course. Even if I was disappointed with the bulk of the film, I still found Lugosi to have a lot of presence and made it worth seeing.

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

Fair enough, my apologies.

No worries then.

The Dracula in the book is Romanian. Bela Lugosi was Hungarian. Christopher Lee is British. If you want to get specific, Hungary shares a border with Romania and the country, and the town that Lugosi was born and raised in (Lugoj) is now part of Romania. At the time he made Dracula, Lugosi had a hard time speaking English. (And yes, you probably know this already, but I'm just putting out there) So I wouldn't call his depiction "American" even if the film was.

Well firstly Dracula technically claims to be Székely. His castle location is in the Carpathians getting towards Bukovina etc. Lugosi was born in Lugos which is actually much closer to the Serbia border.

But anyway I wasn't meaning that. Bram Stoker was not a Romanian, Hungarian or a Székely or an American LOL.

What I'm pointing out was that the Universal film featuring Bela Lugosi as Dracula was an American Hollywood movie and thus any claims of Lugosi's portrayal being the definitive one is looking at it from an American persective. That is NOT the case outside America.

The Hammer films were just as popular (perhaps even moreso) around the world as the Universal films, especially when we include the follow up portrayals and the fact that Christopher Lee played the Count on many occasions places him as the definitive screen Dracula to millions around the world. He really did come along and take over the character. Lugosi remains an important footnote but he hasn't been 'the definitive' Dracula for over 50 years now, ever since Lee first donned the cape. The first doesn't always mean definitive. Christopher Reeve is the definitive screen Superman even though George Reeves was famous as a screen Superman well before him.

Obviously an American might choose an American film as the definitive Dracula but that is not the case outside America and I was also pointing out that Dracula isn't an American fictional character so therefore what an American might consider 'definitive' Dracula doesn't overule the rest of the world. He was invented by a European, specifically an Irishman who lived in England. In Britain and Europe the Christopher Lee Dracula is more famous, more remembered and is seen as the definitive screen Dracula. Bela Lugosi is NOT. The Hammer films themselves are over 50 years old now and ingrained in the consciousness of most people under 80, although those in their 30s or younger might have a connection moreso to Oldman's Count.

I think most people think of Lugosi as Dracula, yes.

Most people where? In America? Europe?

The movie didn't need blood to be effective and while I would prefer fangs, they aren't necessary all the time. And I didn't miss Dracula being a "snarling menace"--he's effective as being refined and gentlemanly.

That's all personal taste of what you wanted, or didn't want, to see in a film. I was asking what do most people 'think of' when they think of Dracula. They thing of fangs dripping blood, red eyes, snarling scary menace. Imposing tall menace. None of that has anything to do with Lugosi.

No, but what's wrong with black and white?

Nothing is wrong with black and white. King Kong (1933) is one of my favourite films. I love Laurel and Hardy. I'm a big fan of 1940s and 1950s film noir.

I just asked if you visualized Dracula in black and white because that's what Lugosi was.

I don't visualize Dracula in black and white and I don't think most people do. I visualize fangs dripping RED blood etc. Again, that's not the black and white Lugosi I'm visualizing.

I'm more visualizing this:

http://www.impactlab.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/christopher-lee-dr acula.jpg

That's Dracula. Scary. Imposing. Fangs. Dripping blood.

When I read the book, and Stoker describes Dracula with bloody fangs, I think of Dracula with bloody fangs. But my mind's eye is still of Lugosi.

Ok. When I read the book I neither think of Lugosi or Lee. I see a creepy looking man with a moustache. First he'd old and grey and then he gets younger and younger.

[–] chongajuly 14 years ago

While both Lugosi and Lee played their respective vampires in a serious fashion, not everyone took them seriously. While Lee's Dracula has never been spoofed, Bela's co-stars in the 1931 DRACULA, particularly David Manners, couldn't help but mock the actor's appearance before a full length mirror, ominously intoning "I am Dracula!" Bela did a fine job with the role, but his fellow actors were rather condescending about the material. Lee's fellow actors always found his presence on set in full costume as awe-inspiring, and were duly bound to treat the material with the respect that he provided (even when he was unhappy with the way Hammer was misusing his talents). And while Lugosi's Hungarian accent has given impressionists something to work with for nearly 80 years, it must be remembered that Lee's mother was Italian, and his continental looks were as much a bane to his early career as his six foot-plus height (the stars were supposed to tower over the supporting cast).

"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

While Lee's Dracula has never been spoofed, Bela's co-stars in the 1931 DRACULA, particularly David Manners, couldn't help but mock the actor's appearance before a full length mirror, ominously intoning "I am Dracula!" Bela did a fine job with the role, but his fellow actors were rather condescending about the material. Lee's fellow actors always found his presence on set in full costume as awe-inspiring, and were duly bound to treat the material with the respect that he provided (even when he was unhappy with the way Hammer was misusing his talents).

Yes that is something I have heard many times, particularly with Lee. His fellow actors and actresses really found him awesome on set dressed as the Count. I think that says it all.

And yes it's true that Christopher Lee is descended from continental nobility on his mother's side. I think he plays the role of the noble count in the first Dracula very convincingly. He looks like a count.

[–] nickm2 14 years ago

I recall an interview with Veronica Carlson-an extra on one of my Hammer DVDs-and she referred to Lee not only as a wonderful man but also a truly 'regal' presence.

NM

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

I recall an interview with Veronica Carlson-an extra on one of my Hammer DVDs-and she referred to Lee not only as a wonderful man but also a truly 'regal' presence.

Yes I can believe that.

[–] chongajuly 14 years ago

Just another comment on Lee's ancestry: whenever he would do a film in Italy, he would always sign the register as "Lee Carandini." I wonder if his mother insisted on it (probably not). His 50th wedding anniversary comes up next year.

"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

I agree. Christopher Lee had very little screen presence. Now, I have seen some other movies with Christopher Lee, and he almost always has a lot of screen presence. But for some reason, in his Dracula movies, Hammer and Jess Franco, he had less. Sometimes, he would have some screen presence, but never as much as in his other films, such as "Lord of The Rings". Sure, he was intimidating when he snarled with blood drooling down his chin, but who wouldn't be? Overall, Bela Lugosi, John Carradine, and Gary Oldman all were more memorable that Christopher Lee in the role. Also, the Hammer film felt even more rushed and watered down that the 1931 version.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

I agree. Christopher Lee had very little screen presence. Now, I have seen some other movies with Christopher Lee, and he almost always has a lot of screen presence. But for some reason, in his Dracula movies, Hammer and Jess Franco, he had less.

Absolutely untrue. He's FAMOUS for it.

In the Jess Franco film that first part when Lee is the grey haired count he has BAGS of presence. You are peeing against the wind I'm afraid. Minority opinion.

Sometimes, he would have some screen presence, but never as much as in his other films, such as "Lord of The Rings".

He's FAR more famous as Dracula.

There were no headlines saying "Saruman to be made Sir".

It was all "Dracula to be made Sir".

Sure, he was intimidating when he snarled with blood drooling down his chin, but who wouldn't be?

No blood here:

http://www.briansdriveintheater.com/horror/christopherlee/christopherl ee5.jpg

Or here:

http://www.davidlrattigan.com/Dracula%20AD%201972%20Christopher%20Lee. jpg

Links keep coming up broken so they might not work.

Overall, Bela Lugosi, John Carradine, and Gary Oldman all were more memorable that Christopher Lee in the role.

John Carradine? Are you serious?

This guy?

http://www.nostalgiadoterror.com/reportagens_7/johncarradinem1.jpg

Also, the Hammer film felt even more rushed and watered down that the 1931 version.

Where was it 'rushed'? What parts?

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

Absolutely untrue. He's FAMOUS for it.

In the Jess Franco film that first part when Lee is the grey haired count he has BAGS of presence.

Watch this scene carefully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqej6t29ygc
See how Dracula plays with his victim, the way he embodies power and menace. He truly captures the character of Dracula, the "spider" spinning a web for his victim. He also is otherworldly and strange. His white-as-a-sheet face with blood-red lips, his unnerving stare, he convinces you that he is not human, but a walking corpse. He tries to act like a nobleman, but we know he is a monster. We see the mocking contempt he has for Renfield in his expression and demeanor. Now watch this scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZJ49vOD64s
What do we get? A nobleman. That's it. Christopher Lee looks and acts like a nobleman. He does not act like a monster acting like a nobleman, he just acts like a nobleman. We do not get the impression that he is toying with Harker, we do not see the evil and contempt in his eyes. Worst of all, he seems human. He does not convince as a walking copse. There is nothing dead or otherworldly about him. And when he brags about his ancestry, he comes across as earnest instead of haughty and contemptuous.

You are peeing against the wind I'm afraid. Minority opinion.

You must remember that I am an American, and where I live, Bela Lugosi is regarded as the Dracula. Now, maybe Christopher Lee is more highly regarded in England, but I'm not English, so it is not minority opinion where I am from.

He's FAR more famous as Dracula.

There were no headlines saying "Saruman to be made Sir".

It was all "Dracula to be made Sir".

I didn't say Saruman is more famous. I said he had more screen presence. There is a big difference.

No blood here:

http://www.briansdriveintheater.com/horror/christopherlee/christopherlee5.jpg

Or here:

http://www.davidlrattigan.com/Dracula%20AD%201972%20Christopher%20Lee. jpg

Links keep coming up broken so they might not work.

One was broken, but I fixed it. In one of those photos, Lee has shadows to his advantage, and is in "attack mode" in the other. Yes, he was pretty scary in attack mode, but what about the rest of the time? He was scary when he was attacking, but who wouldn't be? The rest of the time, he just acts like a normal human.

John Carradine? Are you serious?

This guy?

Yes, him. But I just rewatched a couple of scenes from my DVD of "House of Dracula" (which I haven't seen in years, unlike the 1931, 1958, and 1992 versions, which I had rewatched several months ago), and I must admit that he doesn't have the presence of Lugosi, Lee, or Oldman. Sorry about that.

Where was it 'rushed'? What parts?

It felt very rushed. Harker and Van Helsing already knowing Dracula was a vampire, all of the action taking place in Transylvania, lack of Renfield, etc, give it a rushed, low budget feel.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

Watch this scene carefully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqej6t29ygc
See how Dracula plays with his victim, the way he embodies power and menace. He truly captures the character of Dracula, the "spider" spinning a web for his victim. He also is otherworldly and strange. His white-as-a-sheet face with blood-red lips, his unnerving stare, he convinces you that he is not human, but a walking corpse. He tries to act like a nobleman, but we know he is a monster. We see the mocking contempt he has for Renfield in his expression and demeanor. Now watch this scene.

But in the novel Dracula, Harker has no idea the Count is an undead monster at first. He finds him strange and creepy initially but no more than that.

But anyway, where does Lugosi look or act like a monster or unhuman in that scene? He doesn't even have fangs and he looks chubby in the face and quite healthy right from the beginning. He doesn't look creepy in the slightest and the lasting impression of that scene in that he is being sarcastic towards Renfield and that's about it. All I get from that scene is Lugosi acting like a sarcastic eastern European count for the most part, not an evil monstrous vampire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZJ49vOD64s
What do we get? A nobleman. That's it. Christopher Lee looks and acts like a nobleman. He does not act like a monster acting like a nobleman, he just acts like a nobleman.

You linked to the 1970 Jess Franco film there so I guess you want to talk about that now. Ok that's fine. The 1970 Jess Franco film is the closest Lee came to Stoker's Count.

That's how Dracula acted in the initial part of the book. I thought you had read it? In the book Dracula even goes off on an interesting (to Harker)ramble about his heritage.

We do not get the impression that he is toying with Harker, we do not see the evil and contempt in his eyes. Worst of all, he seems human.

But in the book Harker didn't think Dracula was unhuman when he first met him. That is the point. Dracula wasn't toying with Harker. He actually wanted Harker to do some work for him at first. Harker was there for a reason, not as a play thing. Then when he did his task he was disposable. Dracula wasn't playing games with Harker in the book.

He does not convince as a walking copse. There is nothing dead or otherworldly about him.

Lee in that scene in the 1970 Jess Franco films acts FAR more like a centuries and centuries old Count with a history behind him than Lugosi does. He even has a tiresome/weary vibe about him like he really has been there for a very long time. Lugosi looks like he's just come back from a nightclub.

Lee also looks pale and gaunt and his fangs show now and then. Lee certainly looks no less otherworldly in the 1970 Franco film than Lugosi. How can you say Lugosi looks more otherworldly when he doesn't even have fangs and looks a round faced well fed chappie? A bit of obvious white face powder doesn't make one look 'otherworldly'.

At 5 mins 53 in that Franco clip you posted, Chris Lee looks and acts awesome when he delivers the 'children of the night' dialogue. The fangs are showing through subtlety when he's talking. Brilliantly done. That's the closest I've ever seen on screen to Stoker's Count.

And when he brags about his ancestry, he comes across as earnest instead of haughty and contemptuous.

Same as in the book you mean? Dracula in the book was earnestly proud of his ancestry as well as contemptuous of others.

You must remember that I am an American, and where I live, Bela Lugosi is regarded as the Dracula. Now, maybe Christopher Lee is more highly regarded in England, but I'm not English, so it is not minority opinion where I am from.

I'd vouch that Lee is more revered as Dracula in America than Lugosi is in England/Europe. I know plenty of Americans and Lee is well known as Dracula there. The Hammer films, especially Dracula were hugely popular in the USA wherease in England the Universal Frankenstein films were always more revered than Lugosi's Dracula. Also the Hammer films were huge in Asia and elsewhere around the world.

I didn't say Saruman is more famous. I said he had more screen presence. There is a big difference.

So much so that few people even think of Saruman when they think of Chris Lee, unless they are young and they only know the LOTR films???

Chris Lee's Saruman is not reknowned worldwide as having more presence than his Dracula. He is famous as having much presence as Dracula. That is the point. He became famous for portraying Dracula with great presence despite having little screentime and little to do as Dracula in most of the films and that is a very very hard thing to pull off. How much was he in the original Hammer Dracula? Ten minutes?

One was broken, but I fixed it. In one of those photos, Lee has shadows to his advantage, and is in "attack mode" in the other.

So it was shadows that made him scary? Hmmmmmm. And in the other one he wasn't in 'attack' mode. He was pointing and giving an order.

Yes, he was pretty scary in attack mode, but what about the rest of the time? He was scary when he was attacking, but who wouldn't be? The rest of the time, he just acts like a normal human.

No he doesn't. You can't have watched the Chris Lee Draculas aprt from the first one. He only ever acts like a normal human being (at least in the 5 'period set' Draculas)in the first part of the first Dracula. A lot of the time he is silent and staring intensely. He is not really doing much except just 'being there'. That is what is known as 'presence'. Chris Lee's presence as Dracula was powerful enough that he didn't even need any dialogue. In Dracula Prince Of Darkness he has no dialogue at all in the film.

Watch the first 2 minutes of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV39nnA8mGc&feature=related

Nobody else has ever had that 'presence' as Dracula, including Lugosi. Like I said elsewhere, Lee's sheer physical height helps a great deal but that is 'part' of a person's presence anyway. Nobody else had the tall imposing menacing presence that Lee had. He's a pretty unique Dracula. Lugosi wasn't even scary/creepy when he was in 'attack mode'. He just (to me) looks like a magician playing a trick on somebody and his performance is very stagey, creaky and like watching paint dry. Might have been great in the 1930s but by the late 1950s it was already outdated and now its almost unwatchable,

Yes, him. But I just rewatched a couple of scenes from my DVD of "House of Dracula" (which I haven't seen in years, unlike the 1931, 1958, and 1992 versions, which I had rewatched several months ago), and I must admit that he doesn't have the presence of Lugosi, Lee, or Oldman. Sorry about that.

LOL, ok.

It felt very rushed. Harker and Van Helsing already knowing Dracula was a vampire, all of the action taking place in Transylvania, lack of Renfield, etc, give it a rushed, low budget feel.

Well it WAS low budget. Extremely low budget but it doesn't look like it to me. It was made for just £80,000. It's incredible what they did for that budget. The FX at the end were actually very impressive for their time and the sets are gorgeous. The use of lighting and colour is fantastic. Visually it's a very very appealing movie.

I would call it a 'condensed and changed' telling rather than a 'rushed' one. It got rid of all the the superfluous aspects of the novel.

I never saw any reason why the original story HAD to take place in England with so much dilly dallying around and padding in the middle (Renfield, Lucy taking forever to die, Whitby etc).

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

But in the novel Dracula, Harker has no idea the Count is an undead monster at first. He finds him strange and creepy initially but no more than that.

Yes, but Dracula was still toying with him and acting strange from the beginning. The movie doesn't have to be told through Jonanathan Harker's eyes. The audience is allowed to see things the characters aren't.

But anyway, where does Lugosi look or act like a monster or unhuman in that scene? He doesn't even have fangs and he looks chubby in the face and quite healthy right from the beginning. He doesn't look creepy in the slightest and the lasting impression of that scene in that he is being sarcastic towards Renfield and that's about it. All I get from that scene is Lugosi acting like a sarcastic eastern European count for the most part, not an evil monstrous vampire.

Part of it is his physicality. Bela Lugosi had the cruel-looking lips described in the book, and he utilized them well. Look at the way he grins. He smiles with his mouth, while furrowing his eyebrows. No normal human smiles like that. Even without the grin, his mouth looks very cruel, and his eyes seem to peer into your soul. He also had the stature to pull it off. He was only about three inches shorter than Christopher Lee. You must also take into account that currently, each generation is slightly taller than the last, and for his generation and time, Bela Lugosi was as tall as Christopher Lee in his. If you watch the 1931 Dracula, he towers over the other actors, except for the opera-house scene, in which the floor he was standing on was a foot lower than the floor the others were standing on. Still, that was a clumsy mistake by the cinematographer, and not Bela Lugosi's fault. As for his face, his face was not chubby, that's just the bone structure of his face. Many Hungarians look like that.

You linked to the 1970 Jess Franco film there so I guess you want to talk about that now. Ok that's fine. The 1970 Jess Franco film is the closest Lee came to Stoker's Count.

That's how Dracula acted in the initial part of the book. I thought you had read it? In the book Dracula even goes off on an interesting (to Harker)ramble about his heritage.

Yes, I have read the book. Personality-wise, I think Bela Lugosi and Gary Oldman were closest. Now, let me explain about Oldman. He gave two performances in the 1992 Dracula. Half the time, he was incredibly creepy, and (personality-wise) almost just like the Dracula of the book. The other half the time, he was a sobbing, emo mess. I hated that part, which as entire unfaithful to the book. However, these two performances are fortunately separate enough that two faneditors (one named AdigitalMan, the other being myself) created two fanedits with only the scary, faithful to the book Dracula, without the romantic, sad one. And in those fanedits, when you get to see Gary Oldman as Dracula, he is remarkably like the Dracula of the book personality-wise. Almost just like him. However, appearance-wise, he does not look anything like the Dracula of the book, although he is creepy looking.

Now, back to Lugosi and Lee and the boook. Yes, Dracula rambles about his ancestors in the book, but in the book, I can sense a certain contemptuousness and haughtiness. In the movie, Lee just says, in a matter -of-fact way:
"The blood of Attila is in these veins"

In the book,, the line was:
"Fools, fools! What devil or what witch was ever so great as Attila, whose blood is in these veins?”

In the book, you get the sense that he is speaking this line loudly, with contempt in his voice, Lee's matter-of-fact delivery doesn't do the line justice. Fast-forward to the 4 minute mark on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JWn4HQQ3M
Apart from the sword, growling, and crying, that was much more like the way the Dracula from the book would have said it.

No he doesn't. You can't have watched the Chris Lee Draculas aprt from the first one. He only ever acts like a normal human being (at least in the 5 'period set' Draculas)in the first part of the first Dracula. A lot of the time he is silent and staring intensely. He is not really doing much except just 'being there'. That is what is known as 'presence'. Chris Lee's presence as Dracula was powerful enough that he didn't even need any dialogue. In Dracula Prince Of Darkness he has no dialogue at all in the film.

Watch the first 2 minutes of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV39nnA8mGc&feature=related

Nobody else has ever had that 'presence' as Dracula, including Lugosi. Like I said elsewhere, Lee's sheer physical height helps a great deal but that is 'part' of a person's presence anyway. Nobody else had the tall imposing menacing presence that Lee had. He's a pretty unique Dracula. Lugosi wasn't even scary/creepy when he was in 'attack mode'. He just (to me) looks like a magician playing a trick on somebody and his performance is very stagey, creaky and like watching paint dry. Might have been great in the 1930s but by the late 1950s it was already outdated and now its almost unwatchable,

I don't get much menace from that video. A little, but not much. I have alredy mentioned Lugosi and Lee's height, which again, was pretty equal for their times. Both towered over the other actors. And to be fair, in the book, Harker only mentions once that Dracula is tall, and doesn't even say extraordinarily tall. Who knows, he may be Harker's height?

As for Bela Lugosi being almost unwatchable, very few have that opinion. Many people (including myself) still find him unnerving and creepy, and a few still find him terrifying. And no, he was not creaky. He was slow. You see, there are different ways to make a character scary. The style of scariness used in the 1930s, although very different, is just as valid as the 1960s style. In the 1930s, scariness was achieved by slowly letting an unsettling atmosphere slowly settle slowly into the audience's consciousness. Bela Lugosi's acting was the atmospheric type. In this style of acting, slowness is scariness. It is the very slowness of the acting that adds atmosphere and a gentle unnerving effect. In my opinion, Boris Karloff as Im-Ho-Tep, the mummy, is arguably the most terrifying performance of all time. Just look at this stare: [ur]http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/122/l_f7d5919b692b6881c3018a5aadc732a8.jpg[/url]. That's the stuff nightmares are made of.

I would call it a 'condensed and changed' telling rather than a 'rushed' one. It got rid of all the the superfluous aspects of the novel.

I never saw any reason why the original story HAD to take place in England with so much dilly dallying around and padding in the middle (Renfield, Lucy taking forever to die, Whitby etc).

For one thing, it adds symbolism and depth to the story. With Dracula going to England, you had the theme of a foreigner invading England. Refield is one of the most beloved and necessary characters from the book, and Lucy taking a long time to die added suspense, again, a form of horror based on going slow and letting the dread slowly build.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

I actually like Horror of Dracula the least of all Lee's Dracula films, it seems way to rushed and so on.

A completely faithful adaptation of the Book wouldn't work anyway, so I have no desire to judge the films on that. The Universal Dracula film is still the best Dracula film to me, no other Dracula can compete with Lugosi and no other Renfield can compete with Frye. plus Von Sloan was very good as Van Helsing and I like the stage Play vibe it has, in older flmI usually find their at their best when their made like Plays and/or Operas, like DeMille's films.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

A completely faithful adaptation of the Book wouldn't work anyway

Well, some of the talky bits would have to be shortened, and the middle would also need to be abridged a bit, but other than that, I think a faithful adaption would work very well.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

The Novel is overrated anyway, Carmilla is much better.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

Speaking of "Carmilla", have you seen Hammer's adaption of it, entitled "The Vampire Lovers"?

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

Yes, as an Adaptation it's horrendous, as a stand alone Vampire film it's possible.

Pitt did not have a single think in common with Carmilla.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

I don't think a faithful adaption has been done.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

I know, and it's clear now the upcoming one won't be any better.

The Novel is still awesome, and one of the main inspirations of my own Vampire story.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

I recall that you have mentioned before that you write stories. Do you publish them?

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

No nothing published yet, in fact I sue write loosely, right now there all still up in my head.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

Ah, I see.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

Still, there is allot in my head, I have 5 years of a 7 year long storyline pretty well mapped out.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

I've made up a few stories myself, (just in my head), but none of them are in any great detail. There is one, though, that I actually finished, and wrote on paper. Here is a brief overview of it:

It's about a man who was born without fear. He didn't fear pain, or death, or anything else. But everyone has a fear of the unknown, and he had it too. But it was of only one unknown thing: fear. He was afraid that he might become afraid. He started to have nightmares about becoming afraid when he was a child, and instead of outgrowing them, they got worse as he got older. Then, he started to have panic attacks at random times, as he would suddenly become afraid that he would become afraid of something. When he was in his twenties, he had one such attack that lasted for hours. He lay there on the floor, shivering, covered with sweat, and the fear got worse and worse, finally, he decided he was going to kill himself and end it all. Why not? He wasn't afraid of death. He was now too weak to walk, so he crawled to the kitchen, pulled a knife off the counter, and poised it over his heart. He tried to stab himself, but he couldn't. Something in him just wouldn't let him. Finally, he dropped the knife to the floor in desperation. Suddenly, a realization hit him. He had just been afraid! And fear had saved his life. Not only that, but it wasn't so bad after all. Then another realization hit him. By fearing fear, he had been fearing. He had been succumbing to the very thing he was afraid of without realizing it.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

That's very philosophical, nice.

My Vampire story is one one hand more personal a story then anything else I've written, but on the other hand it does draw on allot of mythology, and very reflects my interests in that sort of thing.

I'm also not afraid to incorporate character now in the Public domain into my stories, Carmilla is a major character in my story, and it also features Lord Ruthven, Dracula (With a new twist of mine that he is Irish rather then Eastern European), and perhaps even Varney. Oh and it does involve other kinds of Supernatural creatures, Werewolves, Werecats, Skin Walkers and even The Monster.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

What's a skin walker?

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

Their form some North American native folklore, people who could change into various kinds of animals.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

I see, they're a form of shapeshifter.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

Yes indeed.

What makes this story more personal then most I write, is that 2 of the main 4 character are in part part based on myself. Normal if there is someone based on myself in one of my scripts their just someone there to comment on what's going on, basically by my own voice. This Vampire story draws on experiences from my own life.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

I just watched Taste The Blood of Dracula, that way better then I expected, I think ti's the 1st they starting blatantly bringing Satanism into it. I think that Courtly guy was the same actor from 72 AD

I liked the scene where Alice killed her dad, that was fun, I was hopping to see Jessica do that in that one episode of True Blood seasons 2, but alas Bill came along and ruined it. It's only time I'm aware of that they have Dracula's brainwashed Human helper be a female, she was allot of fun to watch.

It's interesting how Dracula kills all 3 men by making their children kill him, in a more flesh out script they'd made a number of mythological references from that.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

I just watched Taste The Blood of Dracula, that way better then I expected,

I never cared too much for it. It's my least favourite period set Dracula.

Dracula doesn't need to be the 'villain'. They would have been better off not making it a Dracula movie and instead had another generic monster/evil spirit being brought back to life.

A completely faithful adaptation of the Book wouldn't work anyway, so I have no desire to judge the films on that.

I agree. A completely faithful adaptation of the Book would have too much tedium in the mid part.

I also think the book is way way overrated. Great first 100 pages or so. Good last 100 pages or so but the mid 200 pages is mostly tedious superfluous padding.

The Universal Dracula film is still the best Dracula film to me, no other Dracula can compete with Lugosi

Lee never tried to 'compete'. He gave his own very different portrayal. Lee surpassed Lugosi anyway and he IS Dracula to many many millions around the world. You'll find that fans of Lee tend to be more internationally mixed and from all over the place whereas fans of Lugosi tend to be mainly American. There is a big difference Lee. Chris Lee is certainly the more internationally revered and loved Dracula.

and no other Renfield can compete with Frye.

Well since I never cared for the character, even in the book, I won't even bother to argue.

plus Von Sloan was very good as Van Helsing

Peter Cushing IS Van Helsing to many more people around the world. Cushing was as definitive as Van Helsing as Lee was as Dracula. I'd vouch that most people don't even remember who played Van Helsing in the 1931 Dracula nor even remember his face.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

The biggest flaw with both Lee and Cushing is they played both character as completely British, when neither is.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

The biggest flaw with both Lee and Cushing is they played both character as completely British, when neither is.

You mean like when Universal played the 1930s Frankenstein films as being populated entirely with British people (including Victor Frankenstein himself with his clipped English tone) even though they were in the middle of central Europe? Frankenstein doesn't suffer as a result of that. In the Bride of Frankenstein the old woman at the beginning has a broad Scottish accent hehe.

Same with the old Roman or Viking epics. They speak with either British or American accents. Kirk Douglas and Ernest BorgNine as very American sounding Vikings doesn't bother me, nor does Laurence Olivier and Peter Ustinov as very English sounding Romans in Spartacus.

That's simply the way it was done back then and it's certainly not unique to Hammer.

How about the 1941 Wolfman from Universal? It's supposed to be set in Wales but not a single person even has a Welsh accent, nevermind speaks in the Welsh language. I've never ever been to Wales and not heard a Welsh accent like in The Wolfman LOL. It would be like having a film set in the southern US and never hearing a southern accent.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 13 years ago

Yes allot of that happens, but it remains that Dracula and Van Helsing are both ethnic characters, so calling Cusshing definitive if silly.

And it's a different matter your making a historical film where your not gonna be depicting the real languages anyway.

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

[–] BuddyLove63 12 years ago

Yes allot of that happens, but it remains that Dracula and Van Helsing are both ethnic characters, so calling Cusshing definitive if silly.

Peter Cushing is FAR more renowned as the 'definitive' Van Helsing than anybody else. It doesn't matter what his accent is.

Errol Flynn is the definitive Robin Hood, but he doesn't have an old English country accent. LOL.

And it's a different matter your making a historical film where your not gonna be depicting the real languages anyway.

What are you saying? I don't understand.

You said the biggest flaw is that Lee and Cushing played Dracula and Van Helsing as British. Yet that didn't hurt the Universal Frankenstein when Colin Clive played Frankenstein as completely British and nor does it hurt Spartacus when Kirk Douglas played Spartacus as an American haha.

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

Yes, but Dracula was still toying with him and acting strange from the beginning. The movie doesn't have to be told through Jonanathan Harker's eyes. The audience is allowed to see things the characters aren't.

Dracula wasn't toying with Harker at the start in the novel and neither was the Count overly strange. That's why Harker took a while to feel really worried.

Part of it is his physicality. Bela Lugosi had the cruel-looking lips described in the book, and he utilized them well.

They don't look cruel to me. Lugosi always looked more like a stage magician or a playboy than an undead monster, even in 'Dracula mode'.

Look at the way he grins. He smiles with his mouth, while furrowing his eyebrows. No normal human smiles like that.

Sorry I just don't see it. And Lee's eyes are far more intense than Lugosi's. Especially when they are bloodshot.

He also had the stature to pull it off. He was only about three inches shorter than Christopher Lee. You must also take into account that currently, each generation is slightly taller than the last, and for his generation and time, Bela Lugosi was as tall as Christopher Lee in his.

No he wasn't really. 4 inches (Lee was 6ft 5, Lugosi was 6ft 1) is quite a difference. Lee was noticable much taller than anyone else. Lugosi wasn't to the same extent. Plus, Lee's leaness only accentuated his height moreso. Lugosi was relatively stocky in comparison.

As for his face, his face was not chubby, that's just the bone structure of his face. Many Hungarians look like that.

His face was rounded and very un Dracula like. Chris Lee, in contrast had a narrow face, a sharper more aquiline nose and more in the eyebrow department. Lee looks vastly more like Stoker's description and when we also include his height and lean body type there is no comparison as to who fitted Stoker's description more.

Yes, I have read the book. Personality-wise, I think Bela Lugosi and Gary Oldman were closest.

You cannot be serious? Surely not?? Dracula was never ever the romantic and melodramatic rock star of Oldman's portrayal. Never.

Chris Lee's 1970 Jess Franco portrayal is MUCH MUCH MUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH closer to the Stoker portrayal than either Lugosi and especially Oldman managed.

I really don't understand where you are coming from here. Have you watched the 1970 Jess Franco film? He's closer to the Dracula personality than anyone has ever played him and then in the second half of the film he's also the plain one dimensional predatory monster of Stoker's book who only pops up now and then.

Oldman falling in love and having a conscience hasn't got anything to do with Dracula. Nothing at all.

Now, back to Lugosi and Lee and the boook. Yes, Dracula rambles about his ancestors in the book, but in the book, I can sense a certain contemptuousness and haughtiness. In the movie, Lee just says, in a matter -of-fact way:
"The blood of Attila is in these veins"

In the book,, the line was:
"Fools, fools! What devil or what witch was ever so great as Attila, whose blood is in these veins?”

In the book, you get the sense that he is speaking this line loudly, with contempt in his voice, Lee's matter-of-fact delivery doesn't do the line justice. Fast-forward to the 4 minute mark on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0JWn4HQQ3M
Apart from the sword, growling, and crying, that was much more like the way the Dracula from the book would have said it.

Nope I disagree completely. You can't ignore all those other things. Oldman (as usual) is well over the top and just overdoes it. He almost loses control and comes at Keanu with a sword. Then he is almost on the verge of crying when he says those lines. That's just not Dracula. Stoker's Count was far more in control and staid just like how Chris Lee played him in the Franco film. Lee's Count there is a more considered creepy count rather than the demonstative and overly melodramatic 'lost it' Oldman portrayal. At other times in the film you almost expect Oldman to get out his guitar and start strumming a sad love song when he is with Mina. Geesh.

As for Bela Lugosi being almost unwatchable, very few have that opinion.

Lots have that opinion. I love King Kong 1933 but there are still lots of people who have the opinion that King Kong 1933 is unwatchable because of it's age and old FX.

Many people (including myself) still find him unnerving and creepy, and a few still find him terrifying. And no, he was not creaky. He was slow. You see, there are different ways to make a character scary. The style of scariness used in the 1930s, although very different, is just as valid as the 1960s style. In the 1930s, scariness was achieved by slowly letting an unsettling atmosphere slowly settle slowly into the audience's consciousness. Bela Lugosi's acting was the atmospheric type. In this style of acting, slowness is scariness. It is the very slowness of the acting that adds atmosphere and a gentle unnerving effect.

The time/age has got little to do with it as far as I am concerned. I have already mentioned that Nosferatu is MUCH more effective and that was almost a decade before the 1931 Dracula. Max Schrek is far creepier than Lugosi (admittedly he has a lot of makeup on to help). There is absolutely nothing about Bela Lugosi's portrayal of Dracula that I like or admire and I personally don't know anyone who either thinks of him as Dracula or likes him as Dracula.

Lee is more popular in America than Lugosi is here and I've got many American friends who I have talked to about this so I know. Hammer was very popular in the US.

In my opinion, Boris Karloff as Im-Ho-Tep, the mummy, is arguably the most terrifying performance of all time. Just look at this stare: [ur]http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/122/l_f7d5919b692b6881c3018a5aadc732a8.jpg[/url]. That's the stuff nightmares are made of.

I have admiration for Karloff. Although I never cared for The Mummy his Frankenstein monster is easily the most definitive.

This is where I am being unbiased. I prefer the Hammer films to Universal but I would never suggest that the Hammer Frankenstein movies were the definitive ones or that Chris Lee as the monster is the definitive portrayal. That's clearly Universal and Karloff's. However, Dracula is a different kettle of fish. Hammer's Dracula came along, revolutionised the character and actually surpassed the creaky old Lugosi portrayal. Really Lugosi is all but forgotten here. They almost never even show the 1931 Dracula. Nosferatu is more revered and more shown here.

In contrast some of the Hammer Dracula films were shown in the USA only recently on t.v.

For one thing, it adds symbolism and depth to the story. With Dracula going to England, you had the theme of a foreigner invading England.

It just didn't need to be for the story. The sole purpose was for Brits reading the novel to identify with it more and hence make the novel more popular/successful for the writer to savour. As a plot device for the story it didn't 'need' to be set in England at all. Any large city in Europe would have served the story just as well. Indeed that's one reason why I like the various Hammer Draculas. The settings are fairly localised to the general area of Dracula's castle.

Refield is one of the most beloved and necessary characters from the book,

I disagree with the necessary part. Take him out of the story and what would you really lose apart from a LOT of irrelevent pages? The basic premise would still be there. Harker would still go to Transylvania, Dracula would still come to England, Lucy would still die, Mina would still be infected and the chase back to Transylvania to destroy Dracula would still happen. What exact purpose does the Renfield character really serve in the story to justify being in it so much? Not a great deal. It's just page filler for the most part.

and Lucy taking a long time to die added suspense, again, a form of horror based on going slow and letting the dread slowly build.

I get absolutely no suspense from the tedium of Lucy's slow death. Thats why all the films speed it up and get it over and done with pretty quickly. It doesn't require it to be that long.

[–] hbenthow 14 years ago

Dracula wasn't toying with Harker at the start in the novel and neither was the Count overly strange. That's why Harker took a while to feel really worried.

Here is a passage from the book:

I was awakened by the Count, who looked at me as grimly as a man could look as he said, "Tomorrow, my friend, we must part. You return to your beautiful England, I to some work which may have such an end that we may never meet. Your letter home has been despatched. Tomorrow I shall not be here, but all shall be ready for your journey. In the morning come the Szgany, who have some labours of their own here, and also come some Slovaks. When they have gone, my carriage shall come for you, and shall bear you to the Borgo Pass to meet the diligence from Bukovina to Bistritz. But I am in hopes that I shall see more of you at Castle Dracula."

I suspected him, and determined to test his sincerity. Sincerity! It seems like a profanation of the word to write it in connection with such a monster, so I asked him point-blank, "Why may I not go tonight?"

"Because, dear sir, my coachman and horses are away on a mission."

"But I would walk with pleasure. I want to get away at once."

He smiled, such a soft, smooth, diabolical smile that I knew there was some trick behind his smoothness. He said, "And your baggage?"

"I do not care about it. I can send for it some other time."

The Count stood up, and said, with a sweet courtesy which made me rub my eyes, it seemed so real, "You English have a saying which is close to my heart, for its spirit is that which rules our boyars, 'Welcome the coming, speed the parting guest.' Come with me, my dear young friend. Not an hour shall you wait in my house against your will, though sad am I at your going, and that you so suddenly desire it. Come!" With a stately gravity, he, with the lamp, preceded me down the stairs and along the hall. Suddenly he stopped. "Hark!"

Close at hand came the howling of many wolves. It was almost as if the sound sprang up at the rising of his hand, just as the music of a great orchestra seems to leap under the baton of the conductor. After a pause of a moment, he proceeded, in his stately way, to the door, drew back the ponderous bolts, unhooked the heavy chains, and began to draw it open.

To my intense astonishment I saw that it was unlocked. Suspiciously, I looked all round, but could see no key of any kind.

As the door began to open, the howling of the wolves without grew louder and angrier. Their red jaws, with champing teeth, and their blunt-clawed feet as they leaped, came in through the opening door. I knew than that to struggle at the moment against the Count was useless. With such allies as these at his command, I could do nothing.

But still the door continued slowly to open, and only the Count's body stood in the gap. Suddenly it struck me that this might be the moment and means of my doom. I was to be given to the wolves, and at my own instigation. There was a diabolical wickedness in the idea great enough for the Count, and as the last chance I cried out, "Shut the door! I shall wait till morning." And I covered my face with my hands to hide my tears of bitter disappointment.

With one sweep of his powerful arm, the Count threw the door shut, and the great bolts clanged and echoed through the hall as they shot back into their places.

In silence we returned to the library, and after a minute or two I went to my own room. The last I saw of Count Dracula was his kissing his hand to me, with a red light of triumph in his eyes, and with a smile that Judas in hell might be proud of.

When I was in my room and about to lie down, I thought I heard a whispering at my door. I went to it softly and listened. Unless my ears deceived me, I heard the voice of the Count:

"Back! Back to your own place! Your time is not yet come. Wait! Have patience! Tonight is mine. Tomorrow night is yours!"

There was a low, sweet ripple of laughter, and in a rage I threw open the door, and saw without the three terrible women licking their lips. As I appeared, they all joined in a horrible laugh, and ran away.

I came back to my room and threw myself on my knees. It is then so near the end? Tomorrow! Tomorrow! Lord, help me, and those to whom I am dear!

They don't look cruel to me. Lugosi always looked more like a stage magician or a playboy than an undead monster, even in 'Dracula mode'.

I really don't see how he looks like a playboy. Are you sure you're not thinking of Frank Langella?

Sorry I just don't see it. And Lee's eyes are far more intense than Lugosi's. Especially when they are bloodshot.

This looks pretty intimidating to me: http://www.legendsofhorror.org/images/dracula/dpic5a.jpg

No he wasn't really. 4 inches (Lee was 6ft 5, Lugosi was 6ft 1) is quite a difference. Lee was noticable much taller than anyone else. Lugosi wasn't to the same extent. Plus, Lee's leaness only accentuated his height moreso. Lugosi was relatively stocky in comparison.

I'm not sure of his exact height, I had read 6'3, but he certainly towered over the other actors. And neither one of them really looked all that gaunt. Appearance-wise, Max Shreck is the closest to the book. If you make him a little less bald, add a mustache, and make his fingers broad and squat instead of skinny, you have the Dracula from the book.

His face was rounded and very un Dracula like. Chris Lee, in contrast had a narrow face, a sharper more aquiline nose and more in the eyebrow department. Lee looks vastly more like Stoker's description and when we also include his height and lean body type there is no comparison as to who fitted Stoker's description more.

I again refer you to Max Shreck. With a little more a hair, a mustache, and modifications to his fingers, he looks just like the Dracula of the book.

You cannot be serious? Surely not?? Dracula was never ever the romantic and melodramatic rock star of Oldman's portrayal. Never.

Did you read my whole comment? As I said:

Now, let me explain about Oldman. He gave two performances in the 1992 Dracula. Half the time, he was incredibly creepy, and (personality-wise) almost just like the Dracula of the book. The other half the time, he was a sobbing, emo mess. I hated that part, which as entire unfaithful to the book. However, these two performances are fortunately separate enough that two faneditors (one named AdigitalMan, the other being myself) created two fanedits with only the scary, faithful to the book Dracula, without the romantic, sad one. And in those fanedits, when you get to see Gary Oldman as Dracula, he is remarkably like the Dracula of the book personality-wise. Almost just like him. However, appearance-wise, he does not look anything like the Dracula of the book, although he is creepy looking.

Now, I would also like to point out my edit of the film actually takes the young Dracula completely out. All we have is the old, ugly-looking Dracula, and I was able to cut out all but one crying scene, the one with the sword that you just watched. What is left is quite faithful, personality-wise.

Oldman falling in love and having a conscience hasn't got anything to do with Dracula. Nothing at all.

I agree. That's why I cut those parts out.

I really don't understand where you are coming from here. Have you watched the 1970 Jess Franco film? He's closer to the Dracula personality than anyone has ever played him and then in the second half of the film he's also the plain one dimensional predatory monster of Stoker's book who only pops up now and then.

And so does Bela Lugosi. Oh, and by the way, I just rewatched part of the 1931 Dracula, and realized that Lugosi is perhaps the only actor the play Dracula with the "strange intonation" described in the book. An intonation is the emphasis you put on certain words, and the spacing between words. In many of his lines, such as "I have chartered a ship the take us the England", he incorporates the strange intonation into his performance.

Nope I disagree completely. You can't ignore all those other things. Oldman (as usual) is well over the top and just overdoes it. He almost loses control and comes at Keanu with a sword. Then he is almost on the verge of crying when he says those lines. That's just not Dracula. Stoker's Count was far more in control and staid just like how Chris Lee played him in the Franco film. Lee's Count there is a more considered creepy count rather than the demonstative and overly melodramatic 'lost it' Oldman portrayal. At other times in the film you almost expect Oldman to get out his guitar and start strumming a sad love song when he is with Mina. Geesh.

Again, I cut those romantic and lovelorn parts out in an edit (and so did a previous editor, "Adigitalman".

Lots have that opinion. I love King Kong 1933 but there are still lots of people who have the opinion that King Kong 1933 is unwatchable because of it's age and old FX.

I also like "King Kong", but I really don't see how you consider "Dracula" outdated. It's still very creepy in that old-fashioned, atmospheric way.

Lee is more popular in America than Lugosi is here and I've got many American friends who I have talked to about this so I know. Hammer was very popular in the US.

But just because you have friends in America who prefer Christopher Lee doesn't mean everyone in America does. I live in America, and I know what the popular culture is like here. Sure, some people (mostly the younger ones, in their twenties or so) prefer Christopher Lee, a surprising amount of women like Frank Langella the best, but Bela Lugosi is still the legend, the icon, and most people prefer him. We have a breakfast cereal and a character on "Sesame Street" modeled after Bela Lugosi, and you can hardly mention Dracula, or even vampires, anywhere without someone saying in Lugosi's accent "I vant the thrink your blood" (I know he never said that, but it's become so common that many people would swear that he did) or "Chilthren of the night, vhat music they make". 90% of American popular culture references are about Bela Lugosi. His accent has become especially inseparable with the character.

Really Lugosi is all but forgotten here. They almost never even show the 1931 Dracula. Nosferatu is more revered and more shown here.

But again, that's in England.

I disagree with the necessary part. Take him out of the story and what would you really lose apart from a LOT of irrelevent pages? The basic premise would still be there. Harker would still go to Transylvania, Dracula would still come to England, Lucy would still die, Mina would still be infected and the chase back to Transylvania to destroy Dracula would still happen. What exact purpose does the Renfield character really serve in the story to justify being in it so much? Not a great deal. It's just page filler for the most part.

Renfield is, as I said, beloved. Wen you take him out of a Dracula movie, it's like taking Han Solo out of "Star Wars". Sure, it might tighten the pacing, but you still miss him.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] TemporaryAgent 13 years ago

Renfield is, as I said, beloved. Wen you take him out of a Dracula movie, it's like taking Han Solo out of "Star Wars". Sure, it might tighten the pacing, but you still miss him.

No, Han Solo is a major character who saves Luke's ass in the first Star Wars film. Renfield is a side character and I don't love him. Or at least I don't love his 1931 incarnation, Dwight Frye annoyed me to no end.

In any case, Dracula '31 is one of the most overrated horror films ever made. I simply cannot take the scene where Dracula confronts Van Helsing seriously.

[–] hbenthow 13 years ago

The 1931 "Dracula" is pretty poor, but so is the 1951 version. It is only the performances in them that has any real merit. As for Renfield, he is a major character in the book, and an important part of the story.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] TemporaryAgent 13 years ago

Renfield isn't as important in Dracula as Han Solo is in Star Wars. You take Han Solo out of Star Wars and Luke gets shot down by Darth Vader. You take Renfield out of Dracula- and there's no drastic changes to the plot.

Dracula '31 and Dracula '58 are poor adaptations of the source material, but Dracula '58 is a solid film. Dracula '31 simply hasn't aged well.

[–] hbenthow 13 years ago

Renfield isn't as important in Dracula as Han Solo is in Star Wars. You take Han Solo out of Star Wars and Luke gets shot down by Darth Vader. You take Renfield out of Dracula- and there's no drastic changes to the plot.

Well, if you take Han Solo out of "Star Wars", the plot would be re-written to where he isn't needed, just like the plot of the 1958 "Dracula" was re-written not to include Renfield.

But in any case, as a fan of the book, I can't help but judge the Dracula movies by the book. Perhaps someone who has not read the book, or did not particularly care for it could judge them differently, but I can't. To me, Renfield is a very necessary character.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] TemporaryAgent 13 years ago

But in any case, as a fan of the book, I can't help but judge the Dracula movies by the book. Perhaps someone who has not read the book, or did not particularly care for it could judge them differently, but I can't. To me, Renfield is a very necessary character.

That's reasonable. I never read the book, which is probably why I don't mind the deviations that much. To me, the differences in the various film adaptations help them stand on their own, instead of being nothing more than retreads of the previous Dracula movies.

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

That's reasonable. I never read the book, which is probably why I don't mind the deviations that much. To me, the differences in the various film adaptations help them stand on their own, instead of being nothing more than retreads of the previous Dracula movies.

I've read the book. It is my opinion that the book is full of filler and superfluous characters like Renfield.

If any movie version filmed the story very close to the novel then we would get a very very tedious film. Do you know that Lucy takes the best part of 100 pages to actually die slowly in the book?

The novel Dracula has a cracking first 100 pages or so and a very good last 100 pages or so. The middle 200 pages though are tedious, repetative, overly melodramatic and will send you to sleep for the most part. There are only about 40 or 50 pages in the mid 200 page segment that are even mildly interesting. The Renfield stuff goes on and on and on in the book to little effect and little point. The book could just as well have done withouit Renfield too.

In my opinion the setting of WHITBY is far more important to the story than Renfield, yet Whitby is also often ignored.

[–] TemporaryAgent 9 years ago

Thanks for letting me know about this.

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

The 1931 "Dracula" is pretty poor, but so is the 1951 version.

You mean the 1958 Dracula?

It's not poor in the slightest. It zips along at a nice pace and the film does a good job in condensing the basic story and turning out a fine and well made entertaining film. It was very well liked and still is appreciated to this day in general.

I guess others can argue that Dracula 1931 isn't a poor film either. I don't like it myself though, and it has far more flaws than the 1958 Dracula.

It is only the performances in them that has any real merit.

Hammer's Dracula is well made and the story is admirably well told from beginning to end.

As for Renfield, he is a major character in the book, and an important part of the story.

Yet he's not missed in the slightest in the Hammer Dracula, which to many people is the best version of the story seen on film yet.

[–] hbenthow 13 years ago

I tend to judge Dracula adaptions by the book, so I consider the 1931 and 1958 editions both very flawed. The Jess Franco version is better than the 1958 version, and the 1992 version is simultaneously one of the best and one of the worst worst Dracula movies ever made, half-excellent, half poorly-made.

The 1977 BBC version was also excellent plot-wise, and had the definitive performance of Van Helsing, but suffered from Louis Jourdan's weak performance as Dracula.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 13 years ago

I enjoy Lee's Dracula and Cushing's Van Helsing on many levels, but their not like the book counterparts, and Horror of Dracula is the least inspired film to feature either of them.

I can appreciate lots of "Bandess" from films, like the kinds that are staples of this genre, Horror of Dracula is my least favorite Dracula cause it honestly jsut kinda bores me.

Renfield is entertaining, that's why Dracula suffers without him, but since only the Lugosi films and "Dead and Loving it" have depicting the character well, I don't notice much different between other Dracula films that do or don't feature him.

The 31 film while not on any list of personal favorites of mine is objectively the best film version of Dracula, because it has subtlety and isn't over the Top and just generally plays out like a good play. Lugosi is the best Dracula because of his accent and because he seems like a Phantom in a human form. While Lee just seems like either a typical fun British Bond villain, or an untamed Animal depending on the scene.

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

[–] BuddyLove63 12 years ago

I enjoy Lee's Dracula and Cushing's Van Helsing on many levels, but their not like the book counterparts, and Horror of Dracula is the least inspired film to feature either of them.

Hehe you haven't seen the 2 modern set early 1970s Dracula's I take it?

I can't see how you can say Horror of Dracula is less inspired than those two.

Horror of Dracula was very inspired and was somewhat of a revelation at the time. It helped usher in a new wave of horror movies.

Renfield is entertaining, that's why Dracula suffers without him,

Really? Even when reading the book its obvious that Renfield is filler and just there to make the book thicker. I always found Renfield a dull and completely superfluous character in the book. Renfield was always only ever fluff and padding in the first place.

Horror of Dracula actually benefits from doing away with the tedious Renfield character. I have never enjoyed any film version of Renfield.

Ludwig in Dracula Prince of Darkness was ok but he was only in the film briefly and wasn't over exposed.

The 31 film while not on any list of personal favorites of mine is objectively the best film version of Dracula, because it has subtlety and isn't over the Top and just generally plays out like a good play.

So, what is over the top about Horror of Dracula? The frantic exciting climax? That's far better than the dull and non event climax in Dacula 1931.

Lugosi is the best Dracula because of his accent

Which sounds awful listening to it now. It's become a parody and Lugosi's less than impressive acting ability doesn't help. His performance is just TOO stagey and dull.

Lugosi as Dracula just comes across as an eastern European magician and little more than that as far as I am concerned.

Dracula in the book appears to have been better spoken than the heavy handed accent of Lugosi's.

and because he seems like a Phantom in a human form.

Not to me. He has little presence (compared to Lee) and physically he doesn't look the part.

By the way, Lee was better (physically) from the second Dracula onwards.

While Lee just seems like either a typical fun British Bond villain, or an untamed Animal depending on the scene.

Well at least untamed animal is closer to Stoker's Dracula than Lugosi ever managed to get.

[–] ejfilak 13 years ago

Much like Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, or any other character who's been done to death (particularly one from popular literature) there's a different film and/or actor everyone prefers. I try to keep an open mind when i'm watching a movie adaptation of a book particularly one like Dracula as everyone has a different idea for the story and whether you agree with it or not, it's fun to see things from others perspectives. Most times it's the title character himself that influences the decision.

When it comes to Dracula here's the most common names that come up and why:

Shreck: Some prefer vampires with a more repulsive and otherworldly appearance and with his brilliant performance, make-up, and the great German Expressionist style, he really does look like an ancient supernatural evil on-screen. The movie also set in that whole sunlight=death thing so that helps too.

Lugosi: He's my favorite too, because he has that authenticity about him that steals the show so easily. One minute he's that good looking gentleman that the ladies fantasize about, the next he's a complete corruption of that. Even when he's not on-screen you always feel his presence from the way the actors talk about him. Not only that but in a weird way he also sort of lived the role too. He was born and raised in that area or close to it at least, fought in a war for it, came to a foreign land and learned a foreign language, was married numerous times, attracted and terrified many people, suffered from addictions, and for better or worse became a popular name in the horror genre spoofed and imitated countless times. The main problem was the English version didn't allow for the brutal/sexual themes to be as strong as the Spanish version and being more of an adaptation of the play than the book with many actors from the theatre in a movie that came out at a time when sound had only been around for a few years and left many actors struggling to adapt to it, many find the acting style "campy" or "dated". It's still a great movie though and Lugosi's performance in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is also great.

Lee: He was in the first Dracula movie in color (unless you count Lederer in Return of Dracula which had a pre-Tingler colored blood scene), had more violence and sexual themes (though more tame to today's audience though that's not Hammer's fault), and had a more close resemblance to the character. In terms of the sequels the guy was pretty sour himself about how they exploited the character and strayed from the book. However he got his chance to play/look the role more accurately in Jess Franco's movie Count Dracula which was the first time an attempt was made to follow the book accurately. By now he'd completely nailed how to be Dracula and while not a perfect movie mostly as a result of it's low budget and not using some of it's actors like Klaus Kinski as much as it should, it's commendable for it's efforts, music, and Lee's performance and is a pretty good movie as a whole. I'd recommend picking that one up if you were disappointed with this (I didn't read all the comments so I don't know if someone already did or not). He also appeared in Dracula and Son, but while I appreciate his presence, I don't really care for the movie itself. As a whole he's my second favorite though it's pretty close.

Palance: His Dracula as the miserable lover is probably the only one that DIDN'T come of as ridiculous and take away from the movie (in my opinion). He's pitiful one moment and in a flash goes right back to being creepy. Palance had quite a history playing villains and naturally comes off great in this role. He was offered to play it again too, but declined, though supposedly Marvel based their image of Dracula off him so he's contributed quite alot to the character all the same.

Jourdan: To date the 1977 BBC version is the most accurate version I've seen and for any person looking for a really accurate movie adaptation, I think this is the one to go for. Jourdan's take on the vampire is kept more cool and controlled than others. He's more of the quiet menace type. This does make some scenes slightely less menacing, and he's not my favorite Dracula given how many other great ones there are, but he's still pretty good. Frank Finlay is my third favorite Van Helsing (after Edward Van Sloan and Peter Cushing) and Jack Shepard is beaten only by Dwight Frye as Renfield in my eyes. Judi Bowker's Mina is more true than any previous or later version I've seen both in writing and in her great performance and that really is another thing that makes this such a great version (unlike Coppola's version which had a Mina I'd much rather have liked to get a stake in her heart).

Langella: He's probably the most alluring Dracula I've seen and tried to play the movie version with a touch of humanity and realism (there's only so much you can have for a vampire but I digress). It makes him a bit less scary than some, but he's still got that menace about him particularly when he preys on Mina (who's basically Lucy in this one and is turned into Van Helsing's daughter).

Kinski: His performance in Herzog's remake really makes up for his lack of screentime and motivation as Renfield in Count Dracula (at least he wasn't quite as annoying as the one in this whether that was deliberate or not) and many of the things that made Schreck so good he also displays. He also tries to bring a more lonely touch to the character and it really works despite his hideous appearance. I still prefer the original Nosferatu, but this is a very close second to that.

Oldman: I have mixed feelings about this movie. The supporting cast is pretty mediocre as a whole and while I'm okay with making changes here and there (even the BBC version made some notable ones), taking the entire point and theme away despite claiming to be a more accurate version is pretty dumb. Actually more like EXTREMELY dumb. It's strong points are it's excellent cinemotography, great make-up, lavish costumes (though the old Dracula's wig and Lucy's wedding dress look pretty out of place and silly), superb soundtrack, and Gary Oldman and Tom Waits performances as Dracula and Renfield (though Renfield's the only good performance with all the motivations still intact while Dracula's only Dracula as we know him half the time after he first meets Mina and for the rest he's pretty pathetic as a character). Despite being drunk at times and faking the accent, Oldman is respectable as Dracula and whenever a movie is pretty boring as a whole, Oldman will give it his all even if that does risk being campy, making him always a joy to watch. Anthony Hopkins campy Van Helsing somehow doesn't have the same appeal however.

There's plenty of others I didn't mention (I'm only naming the most noted ones) but there's a film and performance out there for everyone. No one's wrong for liking one or the other, it's all opinion based.

[–] BuddyLove63 13 years ago

Jourdan: To date the 1977 BBC version is the most accurate version I've seen and for any person looking for a really accurate movie adaptation, I think this is the one to go for.

Hmmmm how can it be when the character of Dracula in the 1977 BBC version is so inaccurate?

Though the synopsis in the 1977 BBC version might be the most accurate, the actual Dracula character in that version is so UNLIKE Bram Stoker's creation, almost as much as Gary Oldman's bastardisation of the character was.

All in all I'd say the 1970 Jess Franco version is the most accurate because at least they nailed Dracula himself accurately in that one, even if the plot isn't as accurate as the 1977 BBC version. The tone and Dracula representation certainly is.

[–] ejfilak 13 years ago

I wasn't refering so much to the character being more accurate in the 1977 version as I was to the narrative and the rest of the characters. I know Dracula is basically the main factor in each adaptation, but it's important to remember the other characters and the way the story is handled as well. THAT was where I was satisfied and it's where most of my appreciation for that version is based. As I said Jourdan's take on The Count is far from perfect, but I do see what he was going for with it and wouldn't necessarily call it a "bad" performance, just a less satisfying one than what we'd expect in an otherwise very good production. It's at least a stronger performance than any portrayal of the past decade and I certainly don't think the character was as screwed up as he was in the 1992 version, but of course other performances like Bela Lugosi's and Christopher Lee's blow him away. If your looking for how well they handle the character, then yes the 1970 version is the best one to go with, but I was speaking in terms of how well they adapt the novel overall. Despite some changes and a lesser performance of Dracula himself (the same goes for Richard Barnes in that movie for the most part), I really enjoyed that version. I try to be fair when judging each version, and whether or not it's a good thing, it's to be expected that they'll do something different to keep from looking like an imitation of the countless other versions. The book itself is written in a way that's a bit hard to adapt properly as it's told from so many perspectives and is comprised of notes, diary/phonograph entries, articles etc which works for a book, but not so much for a film. Sometimes they don't do a very good job of adapting the narrative (in fact 95% of the time they don't even try to do it right), but most times they'll at least get the point and theme across. The only times they haven't done that was in the 1980 anime adaptation of the Tomb of Dracula comics by making Dracula unhappy being the monster that he is, the 1992 film which fell flat on it's face whenever it decided it was more interested in copying Jean Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast" than attempting to tell Stoker's story despite having the audacity of putting his name in the title (I actually thought Oldman was pretty good just that he was working with a lousy script), and Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt's abomination of a "sequel".

I love it when a movie follows the book well, but I understand you have to write it differently than a book at times. I also kind of like seeing things from other's perspectives, so I'm open to changes at times as long as they make sense and still tell the story correctly. I even thought the 1992 version was somewhat passable for certain things I mentioned before, but in terms of story they really did butcher the entire point and theme and had some pretty forgettable/bad performances otherwise. But the 1977 version felt much more genuine than others and despite it's flaws that is the one I usually look to for the story and most of the characters. In terms of accuracy with Dracula himself however, yes your right to assume the 1970 one hit the mark. If Christopher Lee appeared in that one as Dracula instead of doing Dracula and Son (I swear he must have lost a bet to have done that one) and been released on dvd sooner, it could have possibly been one of if not THE most noted versions ever.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] movie_nazi 12 years ago

I agree that I liked the Lugosi Dracula better but it was also due to the fact that the Lee's Dracula had hardly any screen time much less lines! I can forgive the cheesy special effects and sets but the writing in this one was atrocious. There was no sense of intrigue or suspense. It was approached with the sense that they were trying to hurry up and tell you a story that you have already heard so they decided to leave out the non important stuff.

Horror of Dracula (1958) - 4 outta 10 stars

My vote history link:http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=5504773

[–] zebulonguy 12 years ago

Coming late to this chat I can say I enjoy Lee and Lugosi and take each of their films on their own merits, but for menace and thrills I would have to hand the crown to Lee, Lugosi is great for a 1931 film with so few effects and early sound problems but Lee has the advantage of a far superior production, far better presence and yes taller than Lugosi and obviously the better actor of the two. However for me the finest Dracula performance would be Louis Jourdan, no way can I see that as weak,he is superlative, chilling, thrilling, masterful.

[–] Blackjack254 12 years ago

I think the Lugosi film is horrible. every single character takes a big hit when compared to their novel counterparts, including Dracula himself. the censoring is not an excuse for that.

(Dracula lets himself be exposed almost IMMEDIATELY, and he stays right where everyone knows he "lives", although they somehow still need Renfield to lead them TO THE ONLY RUINED ABBEY IN SIGHT).

Lee's Dracula is much more menacing, and he's always one step ahead of the heroes.

and, instead of The female lead spending the whole movie crying like a baby and her lover foppishly saying her name every 5 seconds, we have actuall effective4 emotional scenes, Like Lucy being staked and seeing her face changing back from the hidious vampire sneer into a look of peaceful sleep.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

[–] DylansFearFiles 11 years ago

I didn't really care for Bela Lugosi's performance in the first act, but his performance got better to me as the film went along. I thought Edward Van Sloan did a great job as Van Helsing though! Gary Oldman is my favorite Dracula, but Christopher Lee and Gerard Butler follow. Christopher Lee was very sinister and to me, had the everywhere-and-nowhere presence. He did a fantastic job. I plan to watch the other films in the series!

I am a proud believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[–] ChristianeK 9 years ago

I love this film. I like Lugosi Dracula, but this is my favorite adaptation. Color, sets, and atmosphere create divine Überwald, old Technicolor is VAST improvement over modern cinematography, and script is really effective. I have never liked the novel´s subplot involving poor, tragic Renfield. I like that when he appeared as Ludwig in Dracula Prince of darkness he was treated well AND lived. 

[–] michael-abatemarco 9 years ago

Langella: He's probably the most alluring Dracula I've seen and tried to play the movie version with a touch of humanity and realism (there's only so much you can have for a vampire but I digress). It makes him a bit less scary than some, but he's still got that menace about him particularly when he preys on Mina (who's basically Lucy in this one and is turned into Van Helsing's daughter).

I think Langella exudes menace throughout. I love the way his eyes dance in his head. There's a hunger in them that's very creepy. The 1979 version (my favorite) is underrated and deserves a second look. I think his touch of humanity is a ruse. Langella is a predator in this film but you never doubt his evil nature. It's odd but the 1979 Dracula has a rep for being a romanticized version but it's far less so than the 1992 adaptation.

[–] michael-abatemarco 9 years ago

Langella: He's probably the most alluring Dracula I've seen and tried to play the movie version with a touch of humanity and realism (there's only so much you can have for a vampire but I digress). It makes him a bit less scary than some, but he's still got that menace about him particularly when he preys on Mina (who's basically Lucy in this one and is turned into Van Helsing's daughter).

[–] NewMason 9 years ago

Pretty sure Blacula was the best Dracula movie ever made, you're way off base here.

[–] irishtom99 8 years ago

like howard hawks and john carpenter's versions of "the thing",both films are wonderful,with its apples and oranges approach to the story..in 1931,oscar winning cinematographer karl freund combined with browning to set an eerie,surreal,atmosphere as opposed to hammer's bright,vibrant colors..Lugosi and van sloan punctuated the "old Europe"..van sloan was the grandpa professor,wise and brave,and Lugosi,the oily,presumptuous abuser of power..in the hammer version,cushing was the athletic,dashing hero,ala errol Flynn,and lee was the physically powerful,nazi-like menace..the difference to me was the hall of fame performance of Dwight frye as the tortured renfield,the emotional and spiritual collateral damage of the battle between good and evil..his manic,despair was showcased with great dialogue,"isn't this an unusual conversation for men who ARENT crazy?"..rather than choose between the two,i just enjoy how great both films were..although curse of Frankenstein couldn't hang with the original,hammer's remake of the mummy did a fine job of creating its own take of the story..universal from 1931 to 1945 and hammer from 1956 to 1970..two great golden eras of horror..