Moderators: Moderator5, Moderator3, FECC-Moderator, Site Mechanic
Is that your favourites in order of preference?Tang Lungs side kick wrote:Lee's Draculas :
-Prince (prolly my fav)
-Scars
-Horror
-Risen
-Taste (ending wasn't as spectacular as I expected)
-AD '72 (Munro should've become a vampire and they should've had Drac roaming the streets , at least for a few scenes)
-Satanic
Lugosi only appeared in one of the original series. The first sequel, Dracula's Daughter is, in many ways, a more interesting film, though, especially considering it got through the censors of the time. After that we move to the 1940s and the mediocre Son of Dracula and then the films where all the monsters turn up together. Lugosi returned to the role of the vampire in Return of the Vampire for Columbia in 1943, which is well worth a watch, but he isn't playing Dracula as such (although it's the same character in all but name) - he is also a vampirish role in Mark of the Vampire in 1935, the sound remark of the infamous lost silent film London After Midnight.goldbelt wrote:An argument could be made that the slow build up in Prince Of Darkness was intended to make the payoff that much more hard hitting when it arrived I guess, but it was dragged out to the point it was as if they were introducing the character of Dracula to the audience for the first time ever in history. Then again, as it was the first Lee sequel, maybe the idea was to keep him off screen and build expectation with the audience.poormadpeter2 wrote:I have always found Hammer to be somewhat more hit and miss than some, I have to say. Your point about the slow build up is a case in point - and occurs in other horror franchises too, it has to be said. Final Destination (no, not Hammer, of course) is the most frustrating. Do we really have to wade through the kids working out it's all death;s plan in EVERY film?! I confess my favourite Hammer films are the atypical ones - the ones that veer more towards psychological thriller territory than out-and-out horror (The Nanny, The Witches, Fear in the Night etc). Most of the Draculas, Frankensteins and Mummys, I can take or leave - although I'm probably in the minority on that one. One film series they did that never seemed to become repetitive were the Quatermass films, which I have a lot of time for.goldbelt wrote:So, as the Hammerthon continued I turned my attention to Christopher Lee's portrayals of Dracula - movies that I had not revisited in decades, so my Dracula knowledge needed some refreshing, to say the least.
Decades ago, when a Dracula movie came on TV it was something of an event, particularly when it was one you hadn't seen before and were keen to watch them all - the days before video recorders were commonplace.
Each was a sequel, but it didn't matter what order you watched them. Each had to find a new way to not only dispense Dracula at the end, but also to bring him back for the movie from the way they got rid of him in the previous film.
And many of them had spectacular titles
such as ...
Taste The Blood Of Dracula (no thanks, I'm really not all that thirsty)
and
Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (is that the time, I must be going)
and
The Satanic Rites Of Dracula (erm, yikes).
So, having brushed up a little on the subject, I began with Christopher Lee's second outing in the role, Dracula 2 : Electric Boogaloo ........ I mean ........... Dracula, Prince Of Darkness (1966). It is Dracula 2 though, right? The Brides Of Dracula don't count, does it!
Seriously, though, Dracula, Prince Of Darkness (1966) it was, and the beginning of the film, being the end of the original, was a welcome refresher to the franchise.
Overall, a fairly solid Dracula movie, with a perhaps overlong build up to the meat and potatoes of the story - c'mon, they're at castle Dracula, there's little mystery by the sequel to necessitate such a long build up. Some genuinely great moments in the movie once it get's going though.
However, I'm not convinced it can have been the best of the sequels, so feedback appreciated on this subject.
Dracula - I slipped, I Stumbled, I Fell (1966)
http://davidlrattigan.com/Dracula%20Prince%20of%20Darkness%20icey.jpg
http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=hammerfilm;id=64;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdavidlrattigan%2Ecom%2Fhhdraculaprince%2Ehtm
You mention the Final Destination series and I guess with those type of sequels they need to also consider that not everyone will have been a follower of the franchise from the beginning - the first one of the series I watched was actually the one at the racetrack, before ever watching the first ones. Do they really drag the figuring out part out a lot in each film, it's been ages since I watched those, and I haven't seen them all.
Generally, a long build up needs to be rewarded with a decent payoff rather than a 'how much longer until Dracula is gonna show up?'
Like you, I can take or leave the Frankenstein's etc, but the Dracula series with the 'how are they gonna dispatch him this time?' and the more comebacks than Wile E Coyote element made the Lee series stand out, decades ago at least. I don't believe I ever checked out the Bela Lugosi movies, how do they compare?
Thanks for the info. In a Lugosi V Lee contest, who wins, or are they so different that comparing them would be unfair?poormadpeter2 wrote: Lugosi only appeared in one of the original series. The first sequel, Dracula's Daughter is, in many ways, a more interesting film, though, especially considering it got through the censors of the time. After that we move to the 1940s and the mediocre Son of Dracula and then the films where all the monsters turn up together. Lugosi returned to the role of the vampire in Return of the Vampire for Columbia in 1943, which is well worth a watch, but he isn't playing Dracula as such (although it's the same character in all but name) - he is also a vampirish role in Mark of the Vampire in 1935, the sound remark of the infamous lost silent film London After Midnight.
The problem with the Lugosi film of Dracula is that the film itself isn't very good, despite its classic status. It's not based on the book, but on the 1920s stage play which cuts out half the story. And its stage origins are all too apparent for much of the film. The best thing about the film is Lugosi (some might say the ONLY good thing about it Lugosi!). The Spanish version, made at the same time by the same studio on the same sets but without Lugosi, is actually far better as a film - BUT it's lacking Lugosi who undoubtedly brings something special to the film. Even so, I think there are occasions where he was better elsewhere, such as the still-unsettling White Zombie from 1931 or 1932 (can't remember which). Lee's Dracula is quite different and its effect has probably been watered down in many respects because of all the sequels he appeared in.goldbelt wrote:Thanks for the info. In a Lugosi V Lee contest, who wins, or are they so different that comparing them would be unfair?poormadpeter2 wrote: Lugosi only appeared in one of the original series. The first sequel, Dracula's Daughter is, in many ways, a more interesting film, though, especially considering it got through the censors of the time. After that we move to the 1940s and the mediocre Son of Dracula and then the films where all the monsters turn up together. Lugosi returned to the role of the vampire in Return of the Vampire for Columbia in 1943, which is well worth a watch, but he isn't playing Dracula as such (although it's the same character in all but name) - he is also a vampirish role in Mark of the Vampire in 1935, the sound remark of the infamous lost silent film London After Midnight.
Currently it's tempting to source the Lee series of movies on DVD, even though I'm not sure they'd be all that great. Why is there no 'all the Dracula movies for a tenner box set' when you want one
Yes and it also has a great death scene at the beginning and also features the group Stonegroundgoldbelt wrote:Is that your favourites in order of preference?Tang Lungs side kick wrote:Lee's Draculas :
-Prince (prolly my fav)
-Scars
-Horror
-Risen
-Taste (ending wasn't as spectacular as I expected)
-AD '72 (Munro should've become a vampire and they should've had Drac roaming the streets , at least for a few scenes)
-Satanic
I may be mistaken, but wasn't AD '72 one of the best endings of Lee's Dracula?
Yes, the character development could've been a lot better but the cinematography was very good, as were the action scenes. 7.5/10.Greystoke wrote:I loved the latter, but found The Magnificent Seven lacking in many ways. But it's quite entertaining.
Yes , my ranking.......goldbelt wrote:Is that your favourites in order of preference?Tang Lungs side kick wrote:Lee's Draculas :
-Prince (prolly my fav)
-Scars
-Horror
-Risen
-Taste (ending wasn't as spectacular as I expected)
-AD '72 (Munro should've become a vampire and they should've had Drac roaming the streets , at least for a few scenes)
-Satanic
I may be mistaken, but wasn't AD '72 one of the best endings of Lee's Dracula?
Thanks, that appears a great value set, but my main blu-ray player that I have now won't play all region DVD's.poormadpeter2 wrote:If you want the Lee films cheap and you can watch region 1 dvds, then the cheapest way to get them is through the following set. Four films for a tenner. It's not all of them, but a good start. The prints aren't the very best, but perfectly watchable, and they are at least widescreen versions from what I remember.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Film-Favorites-Draculas-Region-NTSC/dp/B000U1ZV7G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475172144&sr=8-1&keywords=dracula+4+film
Hi, thanks for the tip. However, on the back cover it does state region 1 - or are you saying even when printed region 1 on the cover it will probably still be region free?Greystoke wrote:I haven't caught The Seasoning House yet, goldbelt. But I'll keep an eye out for it.
With regards to Lee's Dracula films on DVD, there's a four film set on Amazon for £8.55 new. It includes Dracula, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, Scars of Dracula and Dracula A.D. 1972. It's listed as region 1, but it's a Warners release, so it's probably region-free. I say probably, because Warners` releases usually are region-free, but I've come across one in a couple hundred that wasn't. Which was their first release of The First Deadly Sin on DVD.
We went on the same dayGreystoke wrote:Today I saw The Magnificent Seven (..)
Thank You Greystoke I appreciate the heads up.Greystoke wrote:D.O.A. is quite poor, brian. See the 1950 original instead. Or Crank, which I really like. An Innocent Man is standard, cliched and unoriginal with regards to films of this type. Screamers suffers from the same lack of originality, but it's well played and entertaining. James and the Giant Peach is quite good. The animation is good and I like its sense of grotesque and bizarre.
Rabbit Proof Fence is very good. That's one I recommend, brian. Find Me Guilty is also good. It's more lively than films of this type usually are. Where the Wild Things Are is smart and well-written, with great animation. Bronson is outstanding. It's very original and a brilliant performance piece. It's Tom Hardy and Nicholas Winding Refn at their best. Chained seems to have some good ideas about nature vs. nurture, and D`Onofrio is good here, as he usually is, but It's a film with lots of issues with its tone and narrative
Thank you Greystoke. You are awesome.Greystoke wrote:Most of them. Although, I guess The Invention of Lying will hinge on how much you like what Ricky Gervais does. I'm not a fan. But I really like The Station Agent and Igby Goes Down. The Long Goodbye is quite good. But not a match for the type of film it's updating. Unlike Chinatown, for example. Green Card is really good, too. As is The Rover, which is close to being really excellent. But it hinges on a plot point that will either convince you or not.
Untamed Heart isn't particulary memorable but The Bunker is solid, if it's the 1981 film you're talking about. The Escapist is generally fine as far as prison escape movies go, but Tell No One is superb. I should have mentioned that with the other three on my previous post. Whilst Elephant is grim and very one note, but earnest and well-made.
I hope that you will please tell me what you think about them after you've seen them.Greystoke wrote:I'm just waiting to see Swiss Army Man at the cinema. That's one you asked me about a few days ago, brian. And I've just seen Free State of Jones and Miss Peregrine`s Home for Peculiar Children.
Greystoke wrote:The standout of the three is, unquestionably, Swiss Army Man. Which is one of the most bold, daring and original films I've seen all year. The story, ostensibly, is about a man (Paul Dano) who is stranded on an island and has lost so much hope that he's about to commit suicide. But he's distracted by a body that washes up on the beach. Upon inspection, the corpse (Daniel Radcliffe) is full of wind and flatulating so much that he's able to ride it like a jet ski off the island.brian wrote:I hope that you will please tell me what you think about them after you've seen them.Greystoke wrote:I'm just waiting to see Swiss Army Man at the cinema. That's one you asked me about a few days ago, brian. And I've just seen Free State of Jones and Miss Peregrine`s Home for Peculiar Children.
Upon arriving on what seems to be the mainland, the corpse reveals all sorts of surprising uses -- it fills up with water after rainfall and spews like a running tap. It can fire objects from its mouth, can be used to break wood and gets an erection that works as navigational instrument. So far so utterly bizarre, but there's a rich and revealing subtext here that may be obvious in some ways, but is profound and stark in the way mental and emotional health is discussed. But I think that's best left discovered by watching. Otherwise, this is a striking movie that's superbly crafted and brilliantly acted.
Free State of Jones is also well acted, and that's the film's saving grace. The story, about Newton Knight, has been depicted on screen before, but this is a visceral and immediately involving movie that drops the ball with regards to its narrative structure and characterisation. Knight, played by Matthew McConaughey, is akin to Robin Hood in the way he assembles a band of weary and disenfranchised slaves and deserters to fight alone against an oppressive Confederate government.
McConaughey is terrific, but the narrative is fractured by jumping forward sixty years to a court case involving his descendant grandson, and struggles to keep real focus on the many characters and events that are depicted. Especially in the film's final act, which takes place after the Civil War. Characters are sketchy, at times cliched, such as Knight's wife, who isn't identified as his wife until late in the movie, and a villainous plantation owner. Who is just a villainous plantation owner.
The standout performers, next to McConaughey, are Mahershala Ali, who plays Moses, a slave Knight becomes close friends with. And the wonderful Gugu Mbatha-Raw, a house slave whom he falls for. But I wanted much more from their characters, both in the writing and time spent in their company. However, what's lacking here in most respects is easy to fill in from what we know of the time and place, and because the acting is so good. It's also well-directed, despite a few moments of incredulity, and the necessity for either a leaner edit with respect to the action aspects of the movie, or a longer cut with regards to what it's lacking. Unfortunately, it sits in the middle with jarring interruptions that are well-meaning, but this is a film in need of better focus.
Miss Peregrine`s Home for Peculiar Children is less about Miss Peregrine than a young boy who is lead to her by stories his late grandfather told him. Stories about children with peculiarities, or extraordinary gifts that makes them unique and individual. Which has shades of X-Men on the surface, but this being a Tim Burton film means that it's rich with oddity and invention. Although the story is pretty straightforward, except for the complications that come, quite naturally, with a time travelling narrative. Miss Peregrine`s home is found in a 1942 time loop, which the young boy, played by Asa Butterfield, sets out to discover, much to his father's bemusement.
This isn't Burton on prime form, and it's not quite as dark as his best work, but he creates an inviting premise from a script that's akin to Alice in Wonderland, complete with jeopardy in the form of Samuel L. Jackson`s villain of the piece. And it's a great looking movie, with wonderful costume design and peculiar characters. There's also some nice animated sequences here, too. And a great nod to Jason and the Argonauts. I really enjoyed this movie. It's not the most original film Burton has made. But it's a good fantasy adventure.
With regard to Monster From Hell (1974), although Cushing is older and even looking a little frail perhaps (and the curly wig doesn't help) in this movie, it's cool to find him leaping onto a table and then onto the monster, reminiscent of the way he takes to the table, candle sticks in hand to dispatch Lee back in 1958's Dracula.keninlincs wrote:I quite like Monster From Hell ,i rate it above Must be Destroyed and Created Woman ,which did not appeal to me as much.My favorite Hammer excursion of the Frankenstein character will always be the Cushing and Lee version
Seems a good place to mention he was also very good in the Hammer movie The Woman In Black (2012).Greystoke wrote:I'm also keen to see where Daniel Radcliffe goes next. He's so very eager and committed, and acts with no sense of ego, as would have to be the case in a film like Swiss Army Man. Which shows again how accomplished and able he is as a physical actor. Which is also evident in Victor Frankenstein. But he's willing and able to find and take a diversity of roles in projects with broad commercial appeal and more niche, individual, projects and independent films. Which is a good approach for someone so able.
