Horror of Dracula (1958)

"I am Dracula and I welcome you to my house.", 19 July 2006

When Hammer began their horror cycle in the 50s, they were smart to begin with what are essentially remakes of two of Universal's most well known and successful films – Frankenstein and Dracula. Hammer may have started the ball rolling with The Curse of Frankenstein, but to me, Hammer's second, The Horror of Dracula, is the best movie Hammer made and a vast improvement over Universal's iconic Dracula.

Why do I call The Horror of Dracula Hammer's best and an improvement Universal's film? Three things immediately come to mind – Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and the screenplay and direction. While Bela Lugosi may be a more familiar face to the average movie fan, I've always felt that Lee took what Lugosi did and improved on it. The image of Lee with his bloodshot eyes and bared, bloody fangs is a more frightening visage to me than Lugosi's stare. Lee brought athleticism and vitality to the role. He made Dracula a real physical threat. In short, he made Dracula threatening.

As with Lee vs. Lugosi, Peter Cushing is an improvement over Edward Van Sloan in the role of Van Helsing. The difference is that here the improvement is more apparent and undeniable. Face it, Sloan was a stiff. As interesting as some of his characters ideas may have been, I could never picture the man doing any real battle with a vampire. Cushing, on the other hand, is a whirlwind of activity. He has the same interesting ideas about vampire folklore, but with a physical presence that can actually stand-up to Dracula. In short, Cushing simply is Van Helsing.

Finally, I enjoy the screenplay and direction of The Horror of Dracula more than that of Dracula. Why? Too much of Dracula seems stage-bound. Everything and everyone seems confined to whatever set they happen to be on. It also doesn't help that much of the direction in Dracula is of the "plant and shoot" variety. I realize that this was the case with many early films, but that doesn't mean I like it. In The Horror of Dracula, characters don't feel as confined. Terence Fisher gives the actors the freedom to move. You get the impression that the characters come and go at will. It may be an unfair comparison for movies made some 27 years apart, but this has always been one of my biggest complaints with Dracula. (For the record, I don't have this problem with most of Universal's other classic films like Frankenstein or The Invisible Man, to give just two examples.)

Hammer made many horror films over the years that I consider to be among my favorites. But none equal The Horror of Dracula. I realize that all I've done here is compare two different versions of the same story, but the comparisons are the best way I can think of to express what I like about Hammer's film. In this day and age of bad horror remakes, it's a little odd to me that my favorite Hammer film is a remake.

9/10