Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
The best bet for being able to pickup Hammer, at the moment, is a region free player.
Hammer's DVD release strategy doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but you just have to accept that the rights are scattered to the wind and be patient. (I know, that's a lot to ask for these days on the internet.) It wasn't that long ago that Vampire Circus was one of the hardest to find, and now it's arguably the most available.
Rasputin is available through Netflix, btw.
Rasputin on Netflix must have slipped by me, so thanks. I've managed to find the other Hammer stuff like "Countess Dracula" (RIP Ingrid Pitt) they have available. I actually hadn't seen "Vampire Circus" before a couple of months ago. That was some trippy shit.
While not quite fitting with "Hammer horror" I did watch Hammer's Hound of the Baskervilles today and was suitably impressed. Other than the hound not being quite as impressive as desired, there's very little that's outright wrong and a lot that's really solid to inspired. Fisher really plays up the horror elements, particularly during the prologue.
I caught that on TMC a few months back. A pretty nifty Sherlock Holmes movie, I think. Cushing is really a natural fit for the role-- a kind of flip-side to Baron Frankenstein, cold and reasonable, but on the side of good. I believe he played Holmes in some later, non-Hammer productions but I haven't seen any of those.
FWIW, I'm using http://blog.hammerfilms.com/ to keep up on what's becoming available.
Satanic Rites is pretty fun in its own way.
Also, I can't remember which company, but one of them is slowly moving towards releasing a ton of Hammer horror on Blu. This is in addition to the current one (Shout Factory?) who is already chucking out stuff like Hands of the Ripper and Vampire Circus on the format.
Synapse is the one putting those 2 films out. I've got Vampire Circus, and that one was pretty great.
I recently picked up that Dracula 4 film set that Warner Bros. put out. Had a great discussion with Bob Plissken about Dracula A.D. 1972. That was quite a bit of fun. Cushing and Lee always deliver.
FWIW, I'm using http://blog.hammerfilms.com/ to keep up on what's becoming available.
Thanks, Evil Twin. I'll be keeping an eye on that now.
Ehh... I don't know-- One of the nifty things about "Sister Hyde" was how much Ralph Bates and Martine Beswick resembled each other.
Don't get me wrong, though-- I'm totally on board with Eva Green as Hyde, but surely we could find a better Dr. Jekyll?
I recently picked up that Dracula 4 film set that Warner Bros. put out. Had a great discussion with Bob Plissken about Dracula A.D. 1972. That was quite a bit of fun. Cushing and Lee always deliver.
See, I like "1972" and "Satanic Rites" (that second one much, much more). Getting Lee and Cushing opposite each other again in these roles is the main attraction, certainly...
But they also got slotted into that period of my childhood when I was reading back-issues of "Tomb of Dracula". The "modern-day" Hammer Dracula movies always semed like the live-action version of those.
Christopher Lee turned 90 yesterday. He also has another heavy metal album due out this year. There are no words.
The Gyllenhaals seem like the obvious choice for an update of Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde.
And, agreed, there are no words for how awesome Christopher Lee is.
He also has another heavy metal album due out this year. There are no words.
Wait-- what?
The Gyllenhaals seem like the obvious choice for an update of Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde.
So obvious it didn't even occur to me. Good one.
Lee is putting out his second heavy metal album this year. Both are about Charlemagne. He's also been a session vocalist (mostly spoken word/narration) for the power metal band Rhapsody of Fire for the past 8 years.
Once again. There are no words...
THE MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH (1959)
Terence Fisher made this right during his peak with Hammer and it's an unusual film in a number of aspects. Probably most notably it focuses on the villain instead of the hero character.
The film opens in Paris, 1890, the same year as Jack the Ripper, and features a similar murder on a fog shrouded street. This time it's a regular man and the killer performs a surgical operation as part of the crime. We're soon introduced to the killer Dr. Georges Bonnet (Anton Differing) an artist/doctor who's hosting an unveiling of his latest work. A former model of his, Janine Dubois (Hazel Court) shows up with her new beau Dr. Pierre Gerard (Christopher Lee) and it's clear that sparks are still flying between Dubois and Bonnet.
After the party, which Bonnet hurriedly ends, he's alone in his lab when his current girlfriend interrupts him. He starts to transform into an old man and strikes her down, apparently with some sort of acid touch, before drinking a Jekyll/Hyde potion that restores him. But it's clear that he's on a tight timeframe. And when his elderly colleague and surgeon Dr. Ludwig Weiss (Arnold Marle), crippled by a stroke and no longer able to perform a delicate surgery, Bonnet has to scramble through bribery, blackmail, kidnapping, etc. to induce Gerard to perform the operation before time runs out for him.
The movie is based on a play, The Man in Half Moon Street, and the script doesn't disguise it very well. Fisher does what he can, but the story is a fairly talky, static narrative with few shocks and action. One of the things that would have spiced things up, a topless scene of Hazel Court modeling intended for Europe, was ultimately cut. Thankfully, photos still exist of that scene for instance http://hammerandbeyond.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-am-i-bid-for-hazel-courts-nude.html but they don't help when you're watching the film. It's not until the climax of the film that it really feels like a Hammer film instead of a fairly well made, but relatively tame, period horror film.
Differing is fine as the lead and his Dorian Grey-like existence is interesting. What the script and Fisher make clear is that Bonnet is essentially a selfish coward at heart. He can't face the prospect of dieing. He can't let things go. And, in the end, he doesn't have much of a life at all even while he holds onto what he can at all costs. On a thematic level, the film is actually pretty solid, even allowing for some interesting Christian readings, and makes it a worthwhile watch if not a particularly thrilling one. Christopher Lee gets to play a hero for a change, but the script doesn't give him much dimensions beyond upright, respectable gentleman.
I think it's worth a watch when considering Hammer's library, but I think it's definitely on the second tier.
Lee is putting out his second heavy metal album this year. Both are about Charlemagne. He's also been a session vocalist (mostly spoken word/narration) for the power metal band Rhapsody of Fire for the past 8 years.
Once again. There are no words...
I've a couple: Holy. Fuck.
Thanks for that, Bob. I'm almost tempted to buy those records... I probably won't, but I'm tempted. Good to see Lee going strong at 90.
THE MAN WHO COULD CHEAT DEATH (1959)
This is one of those pictures that I'm now uncertain whether I actually saw once, or just read about in detail in some history of Hammer Studios. I want to say that I remember seeing Hazel Court (who I love) and Lee in this, though. Maybe I should give it a (or another?) look...
So, tonight I watched "The Woman in Black". Given the way the business works these days, I don't know that you could properly call this a Hammer picture as you might have 40 years ago-- but it's still nice to see the Hammer brand pop up before the main titles after all this time. (And-- taking a page from Marvel, I'm sure-- that logo is really goddamn cool.)
In any case: Nice little ghost story. Well-shot, well-acted. Neat ending, too-- even if you see it coming from a mile away.
Because everyone likes a sale: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0001FVEAY/ref=pe_164580_24514230_pe_vfe_dt2
Honestly, the three sets they have linked together for less than $60 is something I'd recommend.
I actually bought that first set a couple of weeks ago-- it was a good deal. The second one is in my cart, mainly for "Brides" and "Kiss of the Vampire" (never much cared for "Curse of the Werewolf"). I'm irritated that there's no "Frankenstein Created Woman" in any of these sets. Their strategy for putting these films out on DVD really is maddening.
THE TWO FACES OF DR. JEKYLL (1960)
This is a really frustrating movie because it comes really close to working and it has a load of juicy themes to deal with plus Christopher Lee as a real cad. But surface level shortcomings end up short circuiting the thing.
The film opens in the standard manner with the bearded Dr. Jekyll (Paul Massie) telling an elder colleague about his goals to unlock the unbridled will in man. In this version, Jekyll is married to Kitty (Dawn Addams) who he doesn't spend any time or attention on and is clearly lonely and bored with him. So lonely that she's having an affair with Jekyll's "friend" Paul Allen (Christopher Lee) who is constantly borrowing money from Jekyll to pay off his gambling debts and, in a commented upon irony, to take Kitty out to nightclubs.
After Kitty leaves her husband alone to go out with Paul, Jekyll transforms into Hyde, also played by Massie. But, in a novel twist, Hyde isn't an ugly brute but a handsome gentlemen who's evil is in his smile, eyes, and actions. Hyde's a real degenerate, experiencing all the pleasures that Jekyll has denied himself. During the course of those revels he comes across Paul and Kitty and discovers their affair.
Hyde has a couple of agendas in mind. He uses Paul to feed his appetite for sin. Along the way he seduces the exotic dancer Maria (Norma Marla) who performs a very interesting dance with a python and not much for clothes. Hyde also tries to seduce Kitty, but in an irony he repels her. After that's unsuccessful, he hatches a revenge plot to destroy Paul, satisfy his appetites with Kitty, and destroy Jekyll.
There's a lot here that's pretty interesting. This is one of the first Fisher films to not really have a hero character at all, the story and title clearly indicts Jekyll as a whole. There's plenty of duality surrounding Jekyll/Hyde with Kitty as the wife/mistress and Paul as the two faced "friend". Massie is pretty good, particularly as Hyde. Lee's in very good form. Fisher's common themes are present. The handsome Hyde idea works well. And it looks good.
Unfortunately, the film is way overwritten. Wolf Mankowitz was a novelist/playwright who wrote the screenplay and about the only idea that's not voiced in the script is Maria's serpent as a phallic symbol. Frankly, I think that was all Fisher's idea. While that may work on the page or stage, on the screen with Fisher supplying a bunch of the story through his visuals it's just too much. Jekyll questioning over and over and over "Who am I?" stands out as particularly bad. This is a very talky film which handcuffs Fisher who normally could bring out these ideas in his direction while the plot proceeds at a good clip, but instead all of this talking frequently stops the movie dead. To top it off, the script has Jekyll and Hyde engage in conversations, coming out of the same mouth with different voices, and the device doesn't work at all. Massie going all bug eyed as a visual signal of transformation is well overdone and that's on Fisher and Massie. The score is awful, being loud and crass underlining every emotion.
As I said, it's too bad because there's a lot the film gets right. Certainly not the worst of Hammer, although certainly among Fisher's worst, it's an interesting failure.
I actually bought that first set a couple of weeks ago-- it was a good deal. The second one is in my cart, mainly for "Brides" and "Kiss of the Vampire" (never much cared for "Curse of the Werewolf"). I'm irritated that there's no "Frankenstein Created Woman" in any of these sets. Their strategy for putting these films out on DVD really is maddening.
Yeah, Hammer's past sets are maddening. I understand sprinkling the Frankenstein and Dracula films with sets of lesser known films. But why can't you buy 5 or 6 sets and be done with it? I'll never figure that out.
Maybe they'll figure it out with Blu Ray. I'm not holding my breath.
THE STRANGLERS OF BOMBAY (1959)
This might not technically be a horror film, it's more an adventure thriller with horrific elements, but it has Terence Fisher directing the movie, a James Bernard score, and includes plenty in common with THE MUMMY that it's not too big a leap to include it. It's also a really solid movie that deserves more attention.
The basic plot of the film has Captain Harry Lewis (Guy Rolfe) of the East India Trading Company investigating disappearances of natives and caravans in colonial India. The local British planters have had enough and they're joined by the former ruler of the area Patel Shari (Marne Maitland). Lewis is confident that he'll get the job of investigating, but bureaucracy runs deep and the incompetent Captain Connaught-Smith, a friend of the Colonel gets the job instead. It's one symbol of the incompetence of the colonial powers.
A cult of Kali lead by a high priest (George Pastell) is behind the disappearances. Pastell played a similar character in The Mummy and he brings a nice intensity which never falls into craziness. The cult strangles their victims leaving no blood behind and there are several sequences where the high priest explains the cults beliefs, such as strangling over bloodshed, that are very effective. They're clearly an evil cult under Fisher's direction, but they clearly have a code of conduct. And punishment for disobeying as there's a sequence early on where members of the cult who have broken the rules are punished through the removal of their eyes and tongues. And where it's revealed that Patel Shari is secretly behind the cult. We also get to see a woman played by Marie Devereaux associated with the cult that is obviously pleased and excited by the murderous work, almost a stand-in for Kali herself. Apparently Devereaux was so excited in her performance that she got the film in trouble with censors, something that will have to be fixed.
Lewis despite the absolute indifference of his superiors presses on in finding what's going on and slowly uncovers the clues while getting absolutely no reward for his work. Lewis is an archetypical Fisher hero, a guy clearly dedicated to good, rational and committed with no thoughts of financial rewards, and Rolfe plays him well. Couple that with run ins with the cult, severed hands being tossed through windows as a warning to meddling, night time attacks with thugs creeping silently towards their victims, Lewis getting captured and threatened by a real cobra, symbolic castration, and a general atmosphere of unease, the cult has infiltrated much of the company itself, and this is a surprisingly quick moving and thrilling movie. The script is by David Z. Goodman who went on write Straw Dogs, Farewell My Lovely, and Logan's Run, among others, and it's solid and well structured throughout. Plus it's not too talky which plays to Fisher's strengths.
This is clearly a B-movie with England passing for India and English actors (including Roger Delgado) made up to be Indians, but it looks much better than it has any right to. The lighting is moody, the sets are effective enough, and it's just a generally exciting and vicious film. James Bernard's score is very effective as well. Other than some contrivances to get Lewis out of the hands of the cult and at the climax, there's not much to complain about at all.
I think this is an underseen gem for Hammer. Well worth seeking out.
Just a reminder that Twins Of Evil is now available!
No date yet (that I can find), but Synapse will finally be releasing the complete series of Hammer House of Horror sometime this year.
No date yet (that I can find), but Synapse will finally be releasing the complete series of Hammer House of Horror sometime this year.
September 11th.
THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1962)
I've been wrapping up a bunch of Terence Fisher lately and this is the last of his horror films for Hammer I hadn't seen. I'm glad I saved this for last as it's one of his better ones.
It does stray from horror more into romantic thriller territory, than previous versions, but I think rather successfully. Herbert Lom portrays the Phantom with a lot of dignity, he's somewhat the hero of the piece as most of the evil goings on get fobbed off on his dwarf companion, and I think it's successful. We find out more about the Phantom than in previous versions and he's given a very sympathetic origin. And divided impulses between the urge to create and the urge to destroy. In the end, protection of his creations proves paramount as he rips off his mask (revealing his true self apparently) and sacrificing himself.
There's a romantic triangle going on with Christine (Heather Sears), the lead singer, and Harry (Edward De Souza), the producer of the opera that's the centerpiece of the film. They're both fairly appealing, if a bit bland, but their relationship isn't as interesting as the Phantom. Thankfully we have Michael Gough on hand as Lord d'Arcy who really spices things up. Gough gets to play a total scumbag and he's obviously having a blast in the role. There's no redeeming him and although he doesn't get to meet a gruesome fate that he deserves, there's promise that the truth will come out afterwards.
Since it's a Terence Fisher film there's likely to be a religious theme in the film and this one comes courtesy of an opera about Joan of Arc. One of the biggest surprises is that the opera that Hammer developed in the film actually seems to be totally credible. Couple that with Hammer obviously pushing their budget conscious ways to the limit and you have a very handsome film with a very good soundtrack and strong acting. It's very ambitious for a B-picture, although the plotting is more than a bit rushed. The mystery of the Phantom, in particular, is remarkably easy to solve. Doesn't matter though with all of the rest of the elements working as well as they do, although the film is never really very scary.
Of course, this radical reworking proved to be not what the public wanted at all. By all accounts it was a flop when it was released and soured the relationship between Fisher and Hammer to an extent. It's too bad as I like to see ambition rewarded and although there were good films from Hammer afterwards, several Frankenstein films and Quatermass and the Pit particularly, the company never really regained the sense of artistic ambition on display here. It took awhile for Fisher's reputation to really be acknowledged and this was the big gamble that didn't pay off at the time. But, it's totally a worthy exercise to visit now and is one of my favorite takes on the material.
Since I'm caught up on Terence Fisher and Hammer Horror, my rankings of Fisher's horror films for Hammer.
The Brides of Dracula
Horror of Dracula
Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed
The Mummy
The Hound of the Baskervilles
The Curse of Frankenstein
The Curse of the Werewolf
The Stranglers of Bombay
The Phantom of the Opera
The Revenge of Frankenstein
The Gorgon
Frankenstein Created Woman
The Devil Rides Out
Dracula, Prince of Darkness
The Man Who Could Cheat Death
Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell
The Two Faces of Doctor Jeckyll
Although, I think they're all fairly consistent in quality, at least the first fourteen. The Man Who Could Cheat Death is where I would say the fall off begins and even that one's not bad. Heck, Monster from Hell and Doctor Jeckyll aren't films without redeeming qualities either. On the whole, that's a remarkable run. What other director has 14 high quality horror films to his name? Without counting stuff like Island of Terror which is a perfectly fine sci-fi horror film although you can tell Fisher isn't totally engaged.
Those are pretty good rankings, Evil Twin, and awfully close to my own... I would bump "Frankenstein Created Woman" and "The Devil Rides Out" a few spots, maybe just below "Curse of the Werewolf" (I've actually never seen "The Stranglers of Bombay").
"Frankenstein Created Woman" gets extra points from me just because of how fucking bizarre the premise is. And I always liked "The Devil Rides Out" as a solid adaptation of a Dennis Wheatley book-- a writer for whom I retain a childhood fondness.
Can't argue at all with your top 3, though. Those pictures are among the best of Hammer's output, period.
Terence Fisher has always been sorely under-appreciated, both among horror fans and within the film community as a whole.
Those are pretty good rankings, Evil Twin, and awfully close to my own... I would bump "Frankenstein Created Woman" and "The Devil Rides Out" a few spots, maybe just below "Curse of the Werewolf" (I've actually never seen "The Stranglers of Bombay").
"Frankenstein Created Woman" gets extra points from me just because of how fucking bizarre the premise is. And I always liked "The Devil Rides Out" as a solid adaptation of a Dennis Wheatley book-- a writer for whom I retain a childhood fondness.
Can't argue at all with your top 3, though. Those pictures are among the best of Hammer's output, period.
Honestly, I think there's a hair's difference between most of them. If I was to put them in tiers, I'd put the first 3 in the top tier, in that order, the I'd put The Mummy through Curse of the Werewolf in a tier (and you could scramble them in the tier any way you wanted), followed by The Stranglers of Bombay through The Devil Rides Out (and you could scramble that tier too without any argument from me), followed by Dracula, Prince of Darkness (which is fine but suffers from Dracula not having enough to do once revived), and then the last three.
I mostly agree with EvilTwin's rankings, but I confess an unnatural love for Dracula A.D. 1972 (mainly for Christopher Neame's pimped out Satanist, Johnny Alucard). Actually, I believe it may have been the second Hammer film I ever saw as a kid, right after Dracula, Prince of Darkness.
Not that I haven't noticed this before, but having recently rewatched Brides of Dracula, I was reminded of how poorly written Yvonne Monlaur's "Marianne" is. I could live with it being sort of bland or whatever, but from the word go the script has her doing the dumbest, most non-sensical things, to the point where it goes beyond basic horror movie tropes and really makes her look as if she has cognitive thought disorder. Ex. After seeing the antagonistic, weird relationship between the Baron Meinster and his mother, the Baroness, does she not have any interest in understanding how this woman died that night? Just a little curiosity...a little...a teensy bit? Nope. He's handsome and vaguely charming. I shall marry him!
I mostly agree with EvilTwin's rankings, but I confess an unnatural love for Dracula A.D. 1972 (mainly for Christopher Neame's pimped out Satanist, Johnny Alucard). Actually, I believe it may have been the second Hammer film I ever saw as a kid, right after Dracula, Prince of Darkness.
Not that I haven't noticed this before, but having recently rewatched Brides of Dracula, I was reminded of how poorly written Yvonne Monlaur's "Marianne" is. I could live with it being sort of bland or whatever, but from the word go the script has her doing the dumbest, most non-sensical things, to the point where it goes beyond basic horror movie tropes and really makes her look as if she has cognitive thought disorder. Ex. After seeing the antagonistic, weird relationship between the Baron Meinster and his mother, the Baroness, does she not have any interest in understanding how this woman died that night? Just a little curiosity...a little...a teensy bit? Nope. He's handsome and vaguely charming. I shall marry him!
I share the fondness for Dracula A.D. 1972, although once Johnny Alucard is offed, I tend to drift off a little.
And I definitely agree with you about Marianne in Brides. I love the movie, because while she's wandering around being a moron, she witnesses/facilitates some fantastic interaction among other characters. But, my lord, how does someone manage to survive from day to day while failing so utterly to connect point A to point B on any matter?
I like Dracula A.D. 1972 quite a bit too. I do wish Lee had more to do, but I think it's a fun updating of the concept.
Yeah, Marianne is quite the dim one. I rationalize it as the she thinks she's in a Gothic romance rather than a Gothic horror movie, but there's no doubt she can't put 1 and 1 together. Good thing the rest of the movie is so great.
Not that I haven't noticed this before, but having recently rewatched Brides of Dracula, I was reminded of how poorly written Yvonne Monlaur's "Marianne" is. I could live with it being sort of bland or whatever, but from the word go the script has her doing the dumbest, most non-sensical things, to the point where it goes beyond basic horror movie tropes and really makes her look as if she has cognitive thought disorder. Ex. After seeing the antagonistic, weird relationship between the Baron Meinster and his mother, the Baroness, does she not have any interest in understanding how this woman died that night? Just a little curiosity...a little...a teensy bit? Nope. He's handsome and vaguely charming. I shall marry him!
Many Hammer films unfortunately have inconsistencies like these because of last minute rewrites. Initially, Brides Of Dracula was going to have two girls traveling to teach at the school: Marianne and another girl. Marianne was supposed to get away from the castle before all the weirdness started. And the other girl stayed, saw everything, and got killed off. But because the filmmakers decided to fuse the characters together at the eleventh hour, Marianne comes off as quite the dunce.
I mostly agree with EvilTwin's rankings, but I confess an unnatural love for Dracula A.D. 1972 (mainly for Christopher Neame's pimped out Satanist, Johnny Alucard). Actually, I believe it may have been the second Hammer film I ever saw as a kid, right after Dracula, Prince of Darkness.
I like the cut of your jib, Johnny.
Badass Digest just made me aware that Hammer recently launched a YouTube channel. I subscribed immediately. Not a lot of content up, but what's there is pretty cool. Has anyone else checked it out?
Not yet, but I definitely will pop over there soon.
I just watched "Horror of Dracula" for the first time recently. I decided I wanted to see most of the major movie interpretations of Dracula and having already seen "Nosferatu" (both the original and re-make), the 1931 Lugosi version, the 1979 Langella version, and Coppola's 1992 adaptation, I felt like having no experience with the Hammer-Christopher Lee Draculas was a major gap in my Dracula on film knowledge.
By this point, the story feels overly familiar (Harker goes to stay at Dracula's place, Harker is shocked by Dracula's true nature, Van Helsing comes along to help extinguish him, Dracula has the hots for an innocent woman connected to Harker), so the intrigue in each adaptation is mostly how the characters and setting are rendered. I think Lugosi's Dracula is still my favourite in terms of performance, just because I love his accent and his fluid, ominous body language. His movie was a let down overall, however, mostly because the limits of filmmaking at the time made its climax stunningly limp. Also, his Van Helsing was a bit disappointingly forgettable, now especially after seeing how effective Peter Cushing was in the role.
While I like Lugosi's performance more, I like Lee's transformation as Dracula more than any of the others. I feel that much more than Lugosi, Langella, Oldman, and the actors in Nosferatu, he played Dracula as having two sides - his public persona and his true vampire self. This makes it understandable why Harker would be lulled into a false sense of security. In contrast, while I liked his performance, I found Langella way too much of a subdued gentleman all the time (he wasn't very scary...didn't even have fangs!) and Lugosi and Oldman were just the same creepy (but magnetic) dude the whole time they were on screen.
I really appreciate the sharp contrast between Lee going from polite host to a startling ferocious, feral animal of a ghoul with crazed eyes and prominent fangs. The ever-present blood on his fangs was a nice touch too, making sure he always looked super sinister. I've always wanted to see this kind of Dracula, as opposed to the perpetually smooth gentlemen he seems to be in many interpretations. I like how Lee has that side of the character, but when Dracula springs into action, I think he should be a terrifying monster, and that's exactly what he was in "Horror of Dracula".
I know Lee has been in a ton of Hammer Horror films after his first turn as Dracula (he even still holds the record for playing Dracula more times than anyone else, right?). I don't know if I'll watch any of the Dracula sequels (I tend to prefer going 'one and done' with things like this), but in case I feel compelled to someday, would anyone recommend any sequels in particular or anything else he's done for Hammer (other than the aforementioned A.D. 1972)?
I really appreciate the sharp contrast between Lee going from polite host to a startling ferocious, feral animal of a ghoul with crazed eyes and prominent fangs. The ever-present blood on his fangs was a nice touch too, making sure he always looked super sinister. I've always wanted to see this kind of Dracula, as opposed to the perpetually smooth gentlemen he seems to be in many interpretations. I like how Lee has that side of the character, but when Dracula springs into action, I think he should be a terrifying monster, and that's exactly what he was in "Horror of Dracula".
I know Lee has been in a ton of Hammer Horror films after his first turn as Dracula (he even still holds the record for playing Dracula more times than anyone else, right?). I don't know if I'll watch any of the Dracula sequels (I tend to prefer going 'one and done' with things like this), but in case I feel compelled to someday, would anyone recommend any sequels in particular or anything else he's done for Hammer (other than the aforementioned A.D. 1972)?
The Lee/Dracula cycle is unfortunately a case of diminishing returns when it come to Lee's performances-- through no fault of his own. In a few entries the Count is reduced to a few scenes of snarling and hissing, and gets to display none of the sinister charm you mention... So I'd go with "Dracula, Prince of Darkness", which is pretty much the direct sequel to "Horror". It brings in some more elements from Stoker's book, and co-stars the amazing Barbara Shelley to boot.
In between those two pictures, though, you have "Brides of Dracula", which has neither Dracula or Lee-- but it's still one of the best vampire movies ever made, and Cushing gives his best Van Helsing in it. A later entry in the series I do like is "Taste the Blood of Dracula", mainly for its great climactic scene in a church.
As far as Lee's other output with Hammer, you really can't go wrong with most of it. Off the top of my head, I'd recommend the pseudo-historical "Rasputin the Mad Monk" if you want to see Lee play pure malevolent crazy. If you want to see him in a rare good guy role, there's "The Devil Rides Out", a nice little occult thriller. Lee was evidently very passionate about bringing Dennis Wheatley's novel to the screen, and it's a shame they didn't make a series out of it.
Yeah, that's a good summary. The Lee/Cushing dynamic and Lee giving Dracula a facade of civility are never really duplicated after Horror of Dracula. Brides of Dracula is probably the standout other than Horror of Dracula, but it's a different movie in a lot of aspects. There's definitely a sense of diminishing returns as the series progresses, although I'd only argue that Satanic Rites of Dracula is the only completely worthless one. Scars of Dracula isn't much ahead of Satanic Rites, but it's the only one to reintroduce the seemingly benign public persona of Dracula.
The duality of Dracula is one aspect where Hammer's version is truer to Stoker's version than most other adaptations. That and having an exciting finale.
Naisu, I'd absolutely recommend you catching Brides of Dracula and Dracula: Prince of Darkness. Both are must-see classics. You can probably skip the rest for now, if you wish.
Dracula Has Risen From The Grave and Taste The Blood of Dracula are fun. Scars of Dracula is the worst of the bunch, though also the most mean-spirited. Dracula AD 1972 is a camp classic. The Satanic Rites of Dracula is not good, but entertaining in its own bad way. Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires is a massively entertaining oddity. None of these are "required" viewing though.
Hammer has been looking to revive their Frankenstein and Dracula franchises in the near future. What isn't widely reported is that they intend on said reboots to actually be sequels, presumably taking place in the modern day world and just continuing on from the original series. I just hope the casting is strong in both. In a perfect world, I think I'd love to see Mark Strong as Dracula and Fassbender as Van Helsing, but I don't know if we'll be that lucky when the time comes. Then again, Fassbender almost did The Woman In Black for Hammer (before scheduling got in the way), so who knows?
Jesus Franco's COUNT DRACULA, starring Lee, is underrated. It's not Hammer but more faithful to the novel (the Count's "That was a Dracula indeed!" monologue is even included), and has an interesting supporting cast: Herbert Lom (Van Helsing), Klaus Kinski (Renfield), and gorgeous Soledad Miranda.
Jesus Franco's COUNT DRACULA, starring Lee, is underrated. It's not Hammer but more faithful to the novel (the Count's "That was a Dracula indeed!" monologue is even included), and has an interesting supporting cast: Herbert Lom (Van Helsing), Klaus Kinski (Renfield), and gorgeous Soledad Miranda.
It certainly is.
There's definitely a sense of diminishing returns as the series progresses, although I'd only argue that Satanic Rites of Dracula is the only completely worthless one.
The Satanic Rites of Dracula is not good, but entertaining in its own bad way.
You guys are killing me here--! I totally dig that one.
Jesus Franco's COUNT DRACULA, starring Lee, is underrated. It's not Hammer but more faithful to the novel (the Count's "That was a Dracula indeed!" monologue is even included), and has an interesting supporting cast: Herbert Lom (Van Helsing), Klaus Kinski (Renfield), and gorgeous Soledad Miranda.
I really have to give Franco's movie another look, haven't seen it in a dog's age... I just bought a cheapie, remaindered disc from a used books store a month or so back and it's still in the shrink wrap. Time to open it up-- maybe for Halloween.
Hammer has been looking to revive their Frankenstein and Dracula franchises in the near future. What isn't widely reported is that they intend on said reboots to actually be sequels, presumably taking place in the modern day world and just continuing on from the original series. I just hope the casting is strong in both. In a perfect world, I think I'd love to see Mark Strong as Dracula and Fassbender as Van Helsing, but I don't know if we'll be that lucky when the time comes. Then again, Fassbender almost did The Woman In Black for Hammer (before scheduling got in the way), so who knows?
Also, you know what would be a nice bit of reversal? Gary Oldman as Van Helsing.
Then again, Fassbender almost did The Woman In Black for Hammer (before scheduling got in the way), so who knows?
Whaaa??? First I heard of this. I liked Radcliffe, but that would have been amazing.
Whaaa??? First I heard of this. I liked Radcliffe, but that would have been amazing.
Yep. Fassbender was James Watkins first choice for the lead after working with him a few years earlier on the underseen and underrated Eden Lake. Scheduling is pretty much the only thing that stopped it from happening. I think Radcliffe was the only other person they asked and he did a great job.
So, here's hoping Sassy Fassy still has an urge to work with Hammer and to re-team with Watkins again. Perhaps on Woman In Black 2?
Hey, I love Satanic Rites..........but I would never call it a "good" movie.
Rewatched Fisher's The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll (1960) recently. I am of the firm opinion that not only does it sport one of the best scripts (if not the best) of any Hammer production of their gothic period, with witty, layered dialogue, but I'm going to throw down the gauntlet and state that it is easily one of the finest adaptations of Robert Louis Stevenson's story ever put to screen.
I'm of the opposite opinion of the script. While it does hold together more than most Hammer scripts which are often slap dash affairs, save for the Nigel Kneale films, talking more and making every point explicit isn't necessarily better. If any Hammer film violates "show don't tell" it's The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll.
I don't see that. The film is about the dialogue between the two sides of this man, so naturally some things are going to be exposed between the two. I think this is actually the very first adaptation that doesn't clear Jekyll of responsibility for what Hyde does, and in fact, it's assessment of Jekyll as a character is far more damning than anything in the book. It's not entirely dissimilar to the apporach to Frankenstein in the CoF, with the exception that the good doctor is written and played as a vile sociopath in that film.
On an entirely separate note, I just realized that Madeline Smith is (very briefly) in Taste the Blood of Dracula as one of the prostitutes visited by the three noblemen. Geoffrey Keen joins Anthony Dawson (Curse of the Werewolf) as one of secondary or tertiary villains who are more monstrous and depraved than any supernatural being in their respective pictures. Some truly unnerving shit in his scenes with Linda Hayden.
I don't see that. The film is about the dialogue between the two sides of this man, so naturally some things are going to be exposed between the two. I think this is actually the very first adaptation that doesn't clear Jekyll of responsibility for what Hyde does, and in fact, it's assessment of Jekyll as a character is far more damning than anything in the book. It's not entirely dissimilar to the apporach to Frankenstein in the CoF, with the exception that the good doctor is written and played as a vile sociopath in that film.
I just think there's a better way to handle it than for Jekyll and Hyde to actually have a conversation out of the same mouth. I will agree that not letting Jekyll off the hook for what Hyde does is an outstanding idea though. It's not titled The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll for nothing.
An interesting note, Terence Fisher didn't really like the film and complained that there wasn't a single likable character in the script. Some of that might be after the fact sour grapes, the movie didn't do well and I could see him wanting to distance himself from the failure, but I do think it is an issue with the film.
