Target has four of Lee's Dracula films for $9.99!

[MIB41]

I thought I would post a shot of my deluxe Dracula figure in celebration of this DVD set. If only they would make one of Peter Cushing as Van Helsing...

[ramsey37]

Michael Gough did alot of horror films in the 50's and 60's, usually playing a villain.
George

[Earth 2 Chris]

I just realized when I watched Horror of Dracula again, the character of Arthur is played by Michael Gough (aka 'Alfred' in the Batman movies from '89 to '97). How that got past me I don't know...

Yes! I remember reading in the press materials for Batman '89 that Gough had played in Hammer Films. A few years later I caught "Horror" on cable, and there he was! He had that great voice even at that age.

Gough turns up in Burton's Sleepy Hollow too, but I don't think I've seen him in anything since. Seems he may have done a voice in "The Corpse Bride"...

Chris

[MIB41]

I just realized when I watched Horror of Dracula again, the character of Arthur is played by Michael Gough (aka 'Alfred' in the Batman movies from '89 to '97). How that got past me I don't know...

[Earth 2 Chris]

I guess it goes back to that old adage - the less we know about our monsters, the more complex they become. Your imagination fills in the blanks.

It's very effective. Even in the first movie, Lee's Dracula only kind of acts normal to Harker when he comes to stay. He seems like he is in a rush, and makes no real effort to make him feel at ease. Lee's Dracula doesn't have time for niceities and would never bother going to the opera like Lugosi or to a picture show like Oldman. He's 100% evil all the time, and I like it!

Making the character a mysterious force of nature is a very cool way to go with Dracula. I have often read many Batman writers say they try to treat Batman the same way. Bruce Timm and company handled this particularly well. In most episodes, Batman just appears and does his thing and then quickly departs. Again, very effective.

Chris

[MIB41]

Lee comes across as an imposing bad-arse, and he just works it, with so very few lines and screen time, really.
Chris

You know you make a really good point (and something I thought about after watching these movies together). Christopher Lee truly has very limited screen time to be the leading star of these movies. In Dracula AD 1972 alone I think his screen time was no more than ten to twelve minutes and I could be generous in that assumption. Hammer films have an interesting formula. Where Universal films develop the monster and perhaps underdevelop the surrounding characters, Hammer films tend to place all the emphasis around the supporting roles and bring the main stars out strictly for their "monster" moment. In most of the Dracula movies Christopher Lee has just three essential scenes - Introduced in iconic pose as the monster; Make snarling facial gestures to attack prey; Die violent death (add blood). You don't really get any kind of scene with him in an introspective moment. He simply is a monster in the purest form and, while simplistic in delivery, somehow comes across VERY effective none-the-less. I guess it goes back to that old adage - the less we know about our monsters, the more complex they become. Your imagination fills in the blanks.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Beachum was also a pleasure to watch and Peter Cushing seem to have a number of scenes where he BRUSHED up against her attributes in a way that seemed more intentional than accidental - can you blame him?

Yeah, I noticed that too! When he puts the cross on her neck while she's asleep, and especially at the end when he picks her up over Drac's "grave", he does seem to be going out of his way to get a better...feel for her. Dirty old grandpa!

The first is definitely the best. But I agree, Lee is the best Dracula. I still have a fondness for Lugosi of course, who did a fantastic job with the limitations that society would put on such a product at the time. But Lee comes across as an imposing bad-arse, and he just works it, with so very few lines and screen time, really.

Chris

[MIB41]

I just finished watching the last one as well (Dracula AD 1972). The film had alot of promise leading up to the resurrection of Dracula. Beachum was also a pleasure to watch and Peter Cushing seem to have a number of scenes where he BRUSHED up against her attributes in a way that seemed more intentional than accidental - can you blame him? But just when it looked like the story would jump up a notch with Dracula back, it basically went no where. I liked the confrontation between Cushing and Lee at the end. But, for God's sake, ole Drac doesn't have the reflexes of a snail when it comes to avoiding a stake. You would think after a few hundred years he would master a few moves or learn to stay out of harms way. Still Lee is by far my favorite Dracula. He just has that larger-than-life look to him. And he still looks fairly creepy with the fangs and iconic bloodshot eyes. My favorite in
the series is the first one (Horror of Dracula).

[Earth 2 Chris]

I still have my little membership card that was given to you when you paid to see Dracula AD 1972 in the theaters. I need to search out those DVD's to try and relive my youth!! LOL!

I watched the last two movies today, one being Dracula AD 1972. I have a nasty sinus infection, so I stayed home from work and vegged out with some movies.

"Taste the Blood of Dracula" actually worked the title into the plot (something I didn't expect), so I give them points for that. Pretty satisfying overall. I liked it better than "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave", personally.

"Dracula AD 1972" wasn't bad. Peter Cushing raised it up several notches. And Stephanie Beachum certainly didn't hurt the visuals. The score bothered me though. I know it was "modern" London, but the "Streets of San Fransisco" rip-off music just didn't work with Dracula. Made me think I was watching a 70s Bond flick. I was waiting for Lee to pull out the Golden Gun!!!

Now I'm all Hammered out for now. I need to get another fix!

Chris

[Earth 2 Chris]

I still have my little membership card that was given to you when you paid to see Dracula AD 1972 in the theaters. I need to search out those DVD's to try and relive my youth!! LOL!

I watched the last two movies today, one being Dracula AD 1972. I have a nasty sinus infection, so I stayed home from work and vegged out with some movies.

"Taste the Blood of Dracula" actually worked the title into the plot (something I didn't expect), so I give them points for that. Pretty satisfying overall. I liked it better than "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave", personally.

"Dracula AD 1972" wasn't bad. Peter Cushing raised it up several notches. And Stephanie Beachum certainly didn't hurt the visuals. The score bothered me though. I know it was "modern" London, but the "Streets of San Fransisco" rip-off music just didn't work with Dracula. Made me think I was watching a 70s Bond flick. I was waiting for Lee to pull out the Golden Gun!!!

Now I'm all Hammered out for now. I need to get another fix!

Chris

[unataper]

I still have my little membership card that was given to you when you paid to see Dracula AD 1972 in the theaters. I need to search out those DVD's to try and relive my youth!! LOL!

[Earth 2 Chris]

Okay, I watched the 2nd flick on this set, "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave". The set skips the second Lee movie, "Dracula: Prince of Darkness". "Risen from the Grave" has some odd bits that jumped out at me. For one, how does Dracula get in a church to hang the body of his victim in the bell tower? Wouldn't old Drac just burst into flames if he came near the church? The priest takes the cross form the church and bars the doors of Dracula's castle with it, and old Drac can't get in his house and is royally ticked off. So how'd he get in the church?

Also, the apparently infamous scene where Dracula REMOVES THE STAKE FROM HIS CHEST. I know they made a big deal on this one about having to pray while you staked a vampire, but this is unheard of in a vampire movie. In J. Gordon Melton's excellent "The Vampire Book" he states that Lee protested this scene. He should have refused to do it!

Despite all this, it's not a bad flick. I think one thing that makes it hard for me to get into modern horror movies is their over-all nastiness. Sure Dracula kills people left and right, but in the end, good wins. In modern horror movies, you may think good wins, but the slasher kills the lone survivor in the last few frames. It's all very depressing.

I think I'll wait till this weekend to view "Taste the Blood of Dracula". Is this one any good?



Chris

[Earth 2 Chris]

I think "Horror of Dracula" has the greatest ending of any vampire movie I've ever see! The movie has stood the test of time. Peter Cushing is always very good even when he was in movies far beneth his talents.

Agreed, great ending. And the Sam Jones "Flash Gordon" movie totally ripped off the final frames!!!

Chris

[phil]

I think "Horror of Dracula" has the greatest ending of any vampire movie I've ever see! The movie has stood the test of time. Peter Cushing is always very good even when he was in movies far beneth his talents.

[Earth 2 Chris]

A better question is why the hell Harker staked the female vampire first when he had Dracula trapped and helpless?!

Yeah, that was one of those moments where you yell at the TV and say "you IDIOT!!". Of course he did it to move the plot along, but it was a total bonehead move. Van Helsing had WAY too much faith in that bozo.

Chris