Watch Dracula For Free

Simply A Masterpiece

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Considered quite brutal and excessively graphic in its day (1958) - "Horror of Dracula" (a Hammer Production) was really surprisingly tame by today's gore-infested standards of over-the-top, blood-saturated vampire movies.But - All the same - This particular horror film of glorified blood-lust is notable for being one of the very first vampire films to initiate the whole ultra-violent, blood-thirst trend that has continued (at full-throttle) to this very day.I think that it's interesting to note that this particular film-version of Bram Stoker's famed vampire story has Count Dracula's castle situated just outside the paranoid, little village of Klausenberg (not the expected, Transylvania).Anyway - Though this film did have its horrific moments - (Stake through the heart, anyone?) - It really wasn't anywhere near to being as sinister and savage as I was expecting it to be.

This is really not a very good movie.It is nowhere near the quality of the 1931 film and at times it is so confused that it approaches Ed Wood levels; and Wood's characters were seldom as lacking in energy and intention as the characters here.The one thing I will give it credit for is the frank sexual aspect that it gives to the vampiric relationship between Christopher Lee's Dracula and his female victims, and I have given it an extra star or two on that account. Although that makes the movie pretty much a celebration of rape fantasies: the tall virile man dominates his prey! The woman is ashamed and fearful, but she thinks only of his coming to her bed! etc.In order to claim that this movie is of higher quality than I've indicated, some process other than normal evaluation must be in play. Perhaps one feels that because this movie played an important part in the history of the Hammer studio and its Dracula franchise, it deserves to be uprated just because of its historical significance? I don't think that's how it works.The story is nowhere near as well thought out as the Abbott and Costello monster movies always were. I will rant about geography for a few sentences just to make my point. The Stoker novel begins in Transylvania; the Count voyages to London; then it ends up in Transylvania again. This is a lot of unnecessary traveling, so the 1931 movie (based on an earlier play) starts in Transylvania and then just has all of the conflict take place in London.The Hammer film decides to save on travel even more, by putting all the action into a sort of tiny space-warped Europe-themed park, at one end of which is Klausenburg (the capital of Transylvania) and at the other of which is Karlstadt, a German city populated by English people, which is 800 miles from Transylvania on the map of Europe but only about 20 miles away in this movie, a brief carriage ride away. You may think this is a picky point, but my real point is that any middle-school student would come up with a geographical approach that made more sense. The middle-school screenwriter would also have more of a sense of the do's and don'ts of vampire-hunting: for example, when you have only a few minutes before sunset to go and kill vampires, don't waste time writing about it in your miserable journal! (In fact it seems that Harker could have just dispatched Dracula in the first minute of this movie if he had had any gumption.)The middle-school screenwriter might think that the male characters should devote more attention to actually preventing the female ones from being killed and converted to vampires, and to care more if they fail in it. But I can't blame that entirely on the screenplay; the blame for the characters' languid attitude has to be shared by the actors and director as well.Much of the vampire-chasing action involves Dracula running out of rooms in order to come back in and make an entrance, taking no thought for the time of day or presence of windows (why does he even have windows in his castle, why hasn't he boarded them up in 600 years). Meanwhile his opponents act as if crucifixes and garlic cost their weight in diamonds, and decline to deploy them as they should. I could go on in this regard, but it isn't worth it.

it reflects the spirit of novel. and this fact represents the basic difference by the others adaptations. in same measure, it use the perfect "chemistry" between Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. and, not the last, it has the courage and impeccable science of realism. so, it is easy to define it the best. because it gives a coherent story and the attention to the details is admirable. because it has the force for sustain an entire universe in its fundamental characteristics. and this is the most important source of its resistance in the competition with each new adaptation.

I guess I'm not the biggest Dracula fan out there, but I still appreciate all the many movie versions out there. This is one of my favorites, although it is hard to tell if I liked this more than the classic Bela Lugosi version. I guess my problem with that was that it was too anti-climatic. This, on the other hand, has a lot more action, but it unfortunately doesn't have nearly as much Dracula. Off the top of my head, I guess I'd probably say this version is better. It's mostly because of the side characters.I was seriously not expecting Dracula's bride to die so soon. I wasn't expecting her to try to attack Jonathan Parker either. I was confused because Van Helsing was advertised as being featured prominently, but it turns out Parker was just a decoy protagonist. Peter Cushing does a great job and I really do love the atmosphere of this movie. About half of it is devoted to a hunt for Dracula. I am sad that Christopher Lee wasn't on screen more! It still creates a powerful story with intelligent conversations and a good set up with the mythology of such a classic character. ***1/2