The Brides of Dracula (1960) Review

This sequel was the obligatory follow up to Hammer Films monster of a hit Horror of Dracula. Beset by production problems from the very beginning, what was put out certainly wasn’t what the public expected. Dripping more atmosphere than blood, the unusually warm and character driven story focused more on the heroic acts of Doctor Van Helsing than the villainy of the undead.

Most people remember Hammer for their vampire films, especially those starring Christopher Lee as Dracula. He isn’t in this one due to personal fears of being typecast (supremely ironic given what happened later), however this movie is one of the better entries in the genre even if the title is false advertising. Yeah, the character Dracula isn’t in it either.

Dracula (1931 Spanish Version) Review

Filmed simultaneously as the famous English language version, the Spanish Dracula is now regarded as being technically superior. Using the same shooting script and sets, but with a different director and cast, it offers a fascinating contrast in approaches. While the English version got all the fame, this is the better movie by far.

 

As the talkies took over the movie industry, demand for native language films grew in Mexico, Central, and South America. This was a sizeable market and filming Spanish language versions alongside the English version was one way to capitalize on the opportunity with dubbing being the other. People wanted to hear their native language and, better yet, see people speaking it on screen.

Universal Pictures decided to film a Spanish version of Dracula at the same time as Tod Browning’s production. Paul Kohner, the former successor to Carl Laemmle who was shoved out of his position running Universal to make room for Junior, was assigned to produce it using the same script and sets. He hired George Melford to direct and the two decided they would one up the other production in every way they could.

During the day, Browning’s version filmed on the sets and by night Melford’s used them. Even the same chalk marks for positions on set were used by the actors. Since the same shooting script was used, I will refer you to my earlier review of Dracula for the plot points. Instead, the focus will be on the differences between the films and why I believe this version to be superior.

First off, the babe factor is a big reason. Yes, that is sexist, but it is also accurate. Even the girl wearing glasses is very attractive and, more importantly, gets more of a chance to act. All the actors benefit from the better direction and pacing of this version, but the women really got a better deal. Perhaps Browning wasn’t good with handling actresses.

Take the bookworm above. In the English version, she is only briefly seen and heard. But here her role is expanded, first by having her comically fall on Renfield (Pablo Alvarez Rubio) repeatedly in the bouncing coach and then by increasing her dialogue. Note that he is not as effete as Dwight Frye’s interpretation and does not seem to mind this happening. She is also shown taking something of an interest in him and later gets a little scene for herself.

Dracula (1931) Review

What better way to celebrate Halloween than with the most famous blood sucker of them all? Supernatural horror films gained acceptance and big box office in America when Bela Legosi donned the cape of Count Dracula. Beset by production problems and an unknown actor in the main part, it was an amazing achievement in its time. Has this horror classic withstood the test of time?

When Carl Laemmle, Jr. was put in charge of Universal Pictures by his father, one of the first things he did was put into motion his plans to revamp the horror movie genre for talkies. Since Dracula was already a very successful Broadway and touring play, it was the ideal subject for introducing the supernatural into horror movies. Prior to it, horror was consisted of the psychological or deformed humans types, with nothing “spooky” allowed. It was thought that American audiences would reject such silliness.

I think we all know how that theory panned out.

Hiring the famous director of Lon Chaney’s incredibly popular silent films, Tod Browning, would insure success because it would be easy to get Chaney to play the part. But “The Man of 10oo Faces” died of lung cancer in 1930 and the studio looked at a lot of actors for the part. Oddly, the star of the smash Broadway play, Bela Legosi, was not considered for the part. In fact, he had to make a desperate concession on salary to get the role he was already famous for and this was only after everyone else passed on it.

Please park your modern day sensibilities and travel back to the more innocent era of the Great Depression to witness a movie that shocked and thrilled the American public.

Horror of Dracula (1958) Review

It is Hammer time which means another horror movie review to celebrate Halloween. This time the most famous vampire of them all gets the British treatment in glorious Technicolor! Blood is sucked, victims are seduced, and a battle of wits between good and evil is enjoined.

After the monster success of The Curse of Frankenstein, Hammer Films decided they needed follow it up with another horror movie. The obvious choice was to remake Dracula using the same formula of action, serious acting, pretty ingénues, gothic sets, and shooting in color. Bringing back the same director and stars would guarantee success. But did it work out as hoped?

Read on to see why I consider Christopher Lee’s Dracula the best portrayal by any actor and Peter Cushing’s heroic Van Helsing the definitive version.

After a long opening credits sequence, the camera zooms in on a crypt placard with the infamous name of Dracula on it. Bright red paint is spattered on it for shock effect and that particular bit is more amusing than frightening. But to audiences back then, it probably worked, since it was a far less jaded time. For us older folks, this kind of in your face “scary” mood setter brings forth feelings of nostalgia. At least it did for me.