Prime Time: Dracula (2025)

I have seen worse films than this. I've also seen films that seemed more pointless. I just can't think of too many of them right now. Dracula AKA Dracula: A Love Tale, as it was titled when writer-director Luc Besson was trying to pretend that this wasn't just a pale imitation of Francis Ford Coppola's movie, is a disappointing mess for all involved. I'll mention them all individually very soon.

The story is one that everyone should be familiar with by now, to a certain degree. There's a deadly and sometimes charming vampire (Caleb Landry Jones), there's a woman who bears more than a striking resemblance to the past love that he thought was gone forever (Zoë Bleu), and there's a priest who knows about the vampire menace and knows how best to deal with them (Christoph Waltz). There are a few other characters allowed to take up some screentime here, none of them very interesting, you get some unnecessarily lively gargoyles, and there's a sequence at the end that helps to lift it above some other, even worse, films making use of the Dracula name, but only just. And it's just too little too late.

I wasn't sure what to expect when I first heard that Besson was giving us his version of the classic vampire tale, but I certainly didn't think it was going to be as dull as this. Although he has moved far away from the peak of his career (you could argue over a few different titles, but probably wouldn't argue that his best work was at least a few decades ago now), Besson remains someone I think of as stylish and willing to take some risks. Dracula has one or two decent visuals, but is mainly quite dull. It's also disappointingly risk-free. I would have much preferred to see something bold that would divide audiences, but instead we get something so safe and tame that it barely feels like a Dracula film. It certainly lacks . . . well, you know how this sentence should end.

Jones is an interesting choice for the lead role, and he tries his best to showcase his talent, but he's rarely given anything truly worthy of him. I could say something very similar about Waltz, and Bleu is just an utter bore for most of her screentime. Nobody decides to throw a curveball here, there are no big performances, and it's clear that Besson wrote the screenplay with his focus on a couple of half-decent ideas ahead of any proper characterisations. Despite the variety of the main character roles, nobody has a distinct voice. 

One scene saves it, one that moves from some enjoyable action to a provocative and philosophical conversation about good and evil, and what is done by people in the name of god. Unfortunately, that's about five minutes, give or take, in a film with a 129-minute runtime. I'll have forgotten it all in a day or two, and I suspect many other people will feel the same way about it. Even those involved in making it.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Dario Argento's Dracula AKA Dracula 3D (2012)

It's almost becoming too easy nowadays to criticise the recent movies directed by Dario Argento, but when the man who was such a master of his craft starts to churn out rubbish as bad as this . . . . . . . . well, I think all of that criticism is well and truly justified.

Because, make no mistake about it, Dario Argento's Dracula (AKA Dracula 3D) is a terrible movie in almost every department. It's so inept at times that you start to wonder whether or not Mr. Argento is having a laugh at our expense.

Everyone knows the story by now, and if you don't then it's up to you to quickly get up to speed, so I won't include too many details here. There are differences, such as the film taking place almost exclusively in Transylvania, but the main characters remain the same. Thomas Kretschmann plays the big man, Rutger Hauer comes along as Van Helsing just in time for the finale, Marta Gastini is a pleasant enough Mina Harker, Asia Argento is Lucy, and Maria Cristina Heller is a sexy vamp for most of the runtime. Let's not mention Unax Ugalde as Jonathan Harker because, well, it's just too painful for me to remember his performance.

The script, written by four people including Argento himself, is a muddled mess, with the recognisable central story strand, and one or two famous moments, surrounded by scenes that range from the ridiculous to the gratuitous, with the latter at least providing SOME entertainment value.

The direction makes it seem as if Argento considered not having his name in the credits at one point. There are a few nice flourishes here and there, admittedly, but from the opening sequence - in which the camera flies through a poorly rendered CGI village - to the anticlimactic finale, this is clumsy stuff, not helped in the slightest by some of the shoddiest editing I've seen in a long, long time.

I've already mentioned some of the performances, but let me just say that Hauer is great and Kretschmann looks like he could have done better with the role if it had been better written and placed in a competent movie. Asia Argento is, as usual, godawful, Gastini is okay, and Heller shows that she's very proud of her breasts. And good for her. And did I mention that I don't want to mention Unax Ugalde as Jonathan Harker?

If you want to be cruel to yourself then watch this immediately. The special effects alone will have you reaching for the nearest spoon with which to scoop out your eyeballs. A few moments featuring different insects made me think, once more, that this whole thing might just be Argento playing a joke on us. Viewed in the right frame of mind, some people may find this funnier than Dracula: Dead And Loving It.

It's not as if the source material doesn't provide some great stuff to develop, for goodness sake. In fact, the strength of that source material is the reason that the film isn't quite a COMPLETE disaster. One or two moments still manage to remain effective, despite the best efforts of Argento and co. to totally screw up everything.

3/10

http://www.amazon.com/Argentos-Dracula-Blu-ray-Hutger-Hauer/dp/B00FUABHVQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391035115&sr=8-1&keywords=dario+argento%27s+dracula

See what I endure? Which is why I also pimp out my book, because every copy of my book sold gets a few pounds in my pocket, and gets you a good read (if I say so myself).

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.

The Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires (1974)

With Christopher Lee hanging up his cape, it was up to Hammer to come up with a Dracula movie featuring the character without leaving someone floundering in Lee's enormous shadow. To be fair to them, they came up with a great way to let everyone involved off the hook, although it would have been nice to see how Mr. Lee would have fared in this curious adventure.

So Dracula (John Forbes-Robertson) takes over the body of a Chinese man (Shen Chan) and heads off to a Chinese village that is home to other vampires who prey on the locals. Fortunately for the villagers, the famous Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) is lecturing in the country and persuaded by a young student (David Chiang) to visit the village and help try to destroy the evil.

One of those bizarre hybrid movies that should perhaps never have come about, The Legend Of The Seven Golden Vampires (to use the UK title) squeezes some Hammer horror moments in between some Shaw Brothers fight sequences and ultimately fails to wholly satisfy fans of either company.

That's not to say that there aren't a number of enjoyable aspects. There are actually some nice, eerie moments here and there and the fight scenes are energetic and athletic enough, but there's nothing making you care for anything in between. The actors are all generally pretty poor. Cushing is as great as ever, Chiang does well enough, but the likes of Robin Stewart, Julie Ege, Robert Hanna and Shen Chan fail to make much of an impression. Of course, when the action sequences start it's easy enough to forget about the failings and just enjoy the unique spectacle.

Direction from Roy Ward Baker (with some uncredited work by Cheh Chang) is pretty uninspired and the script by Don Houghton seems to line up one groan-inducing moment of dialogue after another. If there had been more action or more horror then this could have been a much better movie. As it is, it stands as a lightweight Hammer movie and a fun experiment that didn't really pay off. Although it's still better than the two movies that preceded it.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Dracula: Prince Of Darkness (1966)

The third movie from Hammer in the Dracula fold, this actually follows on more from the end of Dracula than has anything to do with The Brides Of Dracula and, as such, can be accepted almost as a direct sequel in itself.

Directed by Terence Fisher, and with Jimmy Sangster also involved, I was hoping for great things and found myself, sadly, a little disappointed. The story sees our sharp-toothed count laying on some hospitality for weary travellers while he rests in piece until, about halfway through the movie, the resurrection can occur. And what a glorious, crimson-covered resurrection it is - a definite highlight in a movie I found somewhat lacking in other areas. Once Christopher Lee is back on screen it's all the usual Hammer style (i.e. keep distressed damsels safe while the silent Count tries to get his wicked way, in a manner of speaking). And there's a memorable finale that fans will recall when it appears, if not beforehand, though I won't spoil it here.

There's no Van Helsing this time around. Instead, that role is taken over by the presence of Father Sandor (played by Andrew Keir). Keir is okay in the role but I always feel, just my personal preference, that any of the Hammer Dracula or Frankenstein movies not featuring Peter Cushing automatically start with a deficit to make up. As for the rest of the cast; Lee is as good as ever with his mute performance (all bared teeth and staring, bloodshot eyes), Philip Latham is excellent as the Count's manservant and thoroughly dodgy bloke, Thorley Walters is quite amusing as a Renfield-ish type who resides in the Father's care and Barbara Shelley gets some good screen moments in the latter half of the movie. Nobody else really makes much of an impression, to be honest. Suzan Farmer is a little adorable cutie with little to do except look in peril while Francis Matthews and Charles Tingwell play the buttoned down, stiff-upper-lipped lead gents just fine.

There's just something missing here and I can't quite put my finger on what it is. The pacing isn't a problem because, despite Dracula himself not appearing till round about the halfway mark, we have the usual Hammer moments including a tavern scene, a scared coach driver, the exploration of a seemingly empty castle, etc. The script isn't that memorable, the direction seems rather "safe" (that halfway highlight aside) and everything just stands out by dint of it not standing out. Maybe I expected too much but maybe, as I personally feel to be the case, this is simply one of the average Hammer horrors. After all, not every one can be a winner eh.

6/10

This is yet another Hammer title available in this wonderful, bargain box set - http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Ultimate-Hammer-Collection-Disc/dp/B000HN31KQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351094407&sr=8-1

Dracula (1958)

I am about to start a long and enjoyable journey through the entire collection of Hammer movies (or as man as I can get my hands on anyway) and encourage fans of the great studio to stop by now and again. I watched a number of these movies last year but feel that I know more now, in terms of the roster of great actors and my own writing style, to be able to deal with them in a more deserving manner. Here's something to keep in mind when reading any of my Hammer reviews. There's a simple formula that makes up at least half of my ratings for these movies. If Christopher Lee is present then there are 2 bonus points. If Peter Cushing is present then are 3 bonus points. So any film featuring both stars, as this one does, automatically starts off as a 5/10 movie even before the title has appeared.

Anyone wishing to join in, you'd do well to pick up this absolute bargain of a set. You know it makes sense.

Anyway, enough of the introduction. What can be said about Hammer's first use of the most famous vampire in fiction? It's a solid adaptation of Bram Stoker's tale with some changes made here and there, some understandable and others (such as the changing around of the characters Mina and Lucy) somewhat puzzling.

Christopher Lee puts on the cape and shows his fangs for the first time while Peter Cushing is a fantastic Doctor Van Helsing. Michael Gough gets a small but enjoyable role while Melissa Stribling and Carol Marsh are the ladies put in jeopardy. And Valerie Gaunt makes quite an impression as the first vampire encountered by Jonathan Harker (played by John Van Eyssen, an unmemorable actor given less screentime than you'd expect). Stakes are sharpened, garlic is hung around and blood flows.

Directed by Terence Fisher, and written by Jimmy Sangster (adapted from Stoker's novel, obviously), this movie may seem tame nowadays but it still has some great moments and there's no denying the affection that fans of Hammer horror can have for any of their movies when the deep red starts to spill over and the characters find themselves having to show what they're really made of. In fact, blood spattering over the name of the title character is the very first image to be given the screen all to itself just as the opening credits end.

We also get some moments throughout (one involving a vampire victim trying to lure away an innocent child) that remain effective despite the age of the film. There is a mythology established that Hammer would then go on to adapt to fit whatever the future movies required and you just can't watch the film without really feeling that it holds an important place in the history of horror. It wasn't the first big genre name to be given the Hammer treatment but it easily showed that all of the classics could be entrusted to the studio and turned into icons for modern audiences. Lee is as commanding a presence as he often is, Cushing is as wonderful as ever and a climax involving the two men in a fight to the death provides a satisfying end to yet another quality Hammer product.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dracula-DVD-Peter-Cushing/dp/B00006JMP9/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350068548&sr=8-1