Film review - Dracula (1958)

Today's assessment looks at a standout in the economically-generous vampire field.  Filmed and produced in the UK, it made a killing internationally (see what I did there?) despite being renamed 'Horror of Dracula' in the US, thus to avoid confusion with the earlier Bela Lugosi standard.

Following the success of 'The Curse of Frankenstein' (1957) the prior year, another horror remake was planned by Hammer studios allowing cinema-goers to see their favourite monsters in colour for the first time.  Previously the strong majority of Universal horrors were filmed in black and white, whilst it was certain that the best-known vampire features up to now didn't to any further than a tinted shade; specifically the silent 'Nosferatu' (1922).

This interpretation of the fangtastic classic sees Jonathan Harker arrive at Dracula's castle to begin his work as a librarian.  After meeting the Count's acquaintance, it dawns on him he is now a prisoner and gets caught up in bother while trying to help a female servant converted in to a vampire.  Following Harker's lack of success and his own transformation, as well as no contact with the outside world, it falls on Dr Van Helsing to search for his friend's whereabouts and counter-attack the evil activities that Dracula is responsible for.

Not the best take on the tale but far from the worst - and one of the more famous, with Christopher Lee donning the cape.  Arguably his strongest outing in the role, which he would reprise at least another eight times. 'Dracula's strengths lie within its unusual story format where and arguably the strongest outing principal protagonist doesn't appear until two-thirds in.  Played with authority and grace by Peter Cushing, his performance alone drives the film with a different urgency for the rest of the film's duration.

Whilst impressive visually, the dialogue can often come across as hokey.  This is more so evident between the supporting charsctefs, such as the servant girl repeating the line "You will help me, won't you?" with the same tone across two different scenes, where the first time we're to assume what Harker is to help her with; however its apparent that he doesn't even know what her problem is.  That said, his eventual response is a weak "I'll help you, I promise".  These lines were penned during an era where Hammer yarns were like the bloody equivalent of the Carry On series, complete with corny facial expressions, exaggerated physical interactions and not-so-subtle wardrobe choices for the female cast.

Essentially this Dracula version takes itself seriously enough to be memorable without any of the Hammer tomfoolery its sequels woukd contain but it does give a glimpse of what's to come with said verbal exchanges.  When Val Helsing speaks, everyone listens.  For the total of thirteen lines that the Count speaks, each one carries credibility.  Less crucial but equally important characters like the innkeeper and Michael Gough's Holmwood both convey seriousness in a believable manner.

Interestingly enough the relatively short running time of under 90  minutes doesn't harm the picture, instead making the audience want more upon conclusion - and more they got in later years!  It has an effect where you can watch it without fear of losing too much spare time, and possibly was an intentional studio plot to show more public screenings.

It's not The Lost Boys, it's not From Dusk Till Dawn and it's definitely not The Twilight Saga but it's very much recommended viewing, complete with an underrated music score worth listening to!