Perhaps it seems like cheating, but to a certain extent I think that a Dracula movie is a Dracula movie is a Dracula movie. It's difficult to decide which one is "better" or "best."
With the exception of Warhol's Blood for Dracula, which completely threw Bram Stoker's plot out the window, or Coppola's Dracula movie, which made up a whole different history for Dracula's character, most films about the classic count are just variations of the same formula. So, instead of separating them into several short entries, I've decided that the Dracula films I watched for this list are all #11, from the Hammer film series, to the 1979 "sexy" Dracula, to the insanity of Dracula 2000. But which one has the most... bite?
The Hammer Dracula Films (1958 - 1974)
The original Hammer Dracula film (Horror of Dracula in the US) is a campy but ultimately very fun vampire film! Christopher Lee is creepy and eerie, and just shockingly enjoyable to watch as Dracula. And there is blood! This was the first Dracula film to not shy away from gore; we see blood dripping down Lee's chin, and the opening title is inspiring in it's use of gore-as-mise-en-scene.
My main complaint about this film, as well as the next few sequels, is that Dracula doesn't speak. Pretty much at all. There are moments of Dracula emitting a cat-like hiss or snarl, but very few if any actual spoken lines. While on one hand this is interesting and gives Dracula an in-human and otherworldly quality, Christopher Lee has a great voice and the lack of lines prevents Dracula from developing as a character.
Peter Cushing (aka Star Wars' Grand-Moff Tarkin) is fantastic as Dr. Van Helsing and the final battle between him and Lee's Dracula is just pure campy B-movie fun.
However, once you've seen the first really-quite-good-Stoker-adaptation Hammer film, the next few sequels just seem unnecessary. They all follow the same formula:
- Dracula somehow becomes resurrected (because all previous film's end with his "death")
- Dracula feeds on young women
- Some sort of priest or vampire-hunter comes after Dracula
- Dracula dies again
You're basically watching the same film over and over. However, there is one Hammer Dracula film that transcends the formula and becomes so, so, so amazing. Even if you watch none of the other Hammer sequels, I personally think that everyone should watch the insanity that is Dracula A.D. 1972.
Now, I'm sad to report that many people who love the Hammer films think that Dracula A.D. 1972 is the worst of all of the Hammer films, and (to be fair) it is almost unimaginably campy. However, that campiness transcends the film and transforms into a work of B-movie brilliance.
Hippies/London mod-culture versus Dracula.... how could that not be amazing?
The story centers around a Malcolm McDowell look-alike who wants to be a vampire and so summons/resurrects Dracula. (There's that formula again...)
| "Me and my drooges went to the blood bar..." |
However, Dracula has no interest in his new fanboy and only wants to kill the descendants of Van Helsing. This film finally marks the return of Peter Cushing, this time playing his original character's distant relative who just happens to look exactly like the original Van Helsing.
All in all, the Hammer films are all a very particular type. They can be a lot of fun, but also tedious, campy, and repetitive. As the films progressed into the '70s, Lee was able to add more and more personality to Dracula. By the time we get to 1972, even though the films themselves are campier than their 1950's counterparts, I find that Lee's Dracula is by far the most likable and yet deadly seeming of all the Dracula embodiments.
Dracula (1979)
By the late 1970s, Dracula was more of a punchline than a feared "creature of the night," especially with the final Hammer films seeming so campy and ridiculous. This made way for a new type of Dracula film....... one that honestly watches like Dracula fanfiction.
The story is the same: Dracula travels to England from Transylvania, bites a bunch of women, is stopped by Van Helsing. However, this incarnation of Dracula was almost the Twilight-before-Twilight. This Dracula isn't scary, oh no! He's... sexy! And suave! And dashing!
All the gore and creepiness from the earlier Hammer films are gone in this incarnation, with Frank Lagella playing Dracula as just a charming and seductive rich guy. Oh yeah, who happens to bite women and turn them into blood suckers. But who cares? He's dreamy!
What's so crazy is that this Dracula just seems so much more competent than his human adversaries. When Van Helsing finally confronts our vampire protagonist, Dracula starts scoffing about how pitiful the vampire-hunter seems and how Dracula himself is "centuries old" and will not be defeated by Van Helsing. And... he seems to be right! Dracula has more of a "minor set back" in this film than a defeat.
What's difficult with this movie is that Dracula is so non-threatening that the whole conflict seems unimportant. However... oh my gosh, that 70's hair! That smile! Yes, even with the lack of "spookiness," this Dracula still ends up being a lot of fun.
Dracula 2000
Oh, Dracula 2000. What can I say about this movie? It's basically the exact same premise of Dracula A.D. 1972 but in a much more recent era... and with, wait, is that GERARD BUTLER as Dracula?!?!
 |
| THIS IS... SPARTA? |
The main detail that makes this film feel hilariously dated though is the fact that the girl (a reinterpretation of Mina from the novel) who Dracula is stalking is so "hip" that she works at Virgin Records. And oh my goodness, is the Virgin Megastore represented in this movie. The logo for Virgin almost seems a more important figure than Dracula! Heck, it has almost as many appearances
Subtle, isn't it?
Anyway, Dracula 2000 is just as cheesy as any Hammer film, but it also has a similar ridiculous charm that makes it fairly watchable, even with the 2000's ridiculousness. The biggest misstep for me is that the filmmakers tried to be "original" and give Dracula a biblical origin rather than the classic Vlad Dracule background. This seemed entirely out of place... until Dracula was killed by a neon plastic Jesus. Then I just laughed and thought, "Oh dear, the year 2000..."
All in all, Dracula movies are always a solid bet when you're in the mood for a vampire flick. They are typically predictable, but that predictability can be nostalgic and just a lot of fun, regardless of the era.
Rating: 3 out of 5 bites
~ LK
No comments:
Post a Comment