Hammer Horror

I still say that F.W. Murnau and Max Schreck did it before and did it better in "Nosferatu", but I can say that "Horror of Dracula". runs a very close second

After watching this film again, I have no doubts why Christopher Lee is so well remembered for his portrayal of Count Dracula and not just because he happened to put in the most screen appearances as said anti-hero to date. The black cloak clad over his well-over six foot frame lends an aura of menace and intimidation that no other version since Max Schreck has held with such ease. The initial scenes of him showing his charming side are, in my opinion, sorely missed later when he seems to have been reduced to the level of stereotypical vampire on the loose, but I'm willing to overlook this as I descended through the Dracula film series. Forget Lugosi; Lee is the definitive version of the Count.

Peter Cushing, meanwhile, takes center stage as Dracula's driven, calculating adversary, Professor Van Helsing. Here, the script uses an old trick of literature by using the phonograph recording scene to subconsciously ask the viewer that if a man as intelligent and sophisticated as Van Helsing can believe in vampires, than why not the audience? As determined as a bloodhound on the scent of his prey, Van Helsing is not unsympathetic to the suffering of the Count's victims and their loved ones. But, by necessity, he must remain hardnosed and decisive on what needs to be done and not being afraid to tell the parties responsible for carrying out his wishs that this must be so.

The ending suggests the influence of "Nosferatu" (the first instance in cinema were a vampire could be killed by sunlight), but I must admit that it stands, head and shoulders, above what Murnau's film wrought and, indeed, what Stoker's original novel had. Oddly enough, I feel no victory in Dracula's death. Rather, I feel that the world has lost something irreplacable, no matter how brutal that something was. It almost makes me kind of glad that the Count would rise again in several other Hammer sequels...

Still a great film and well worth checking out.

This film is not quite the kind of sheer perfection that you find in "Horror Of Dracula" or " The Brides Of Dracula" but is a good 3rd film in the Hammer films Dracula series

As is usual for Director Terrence Fisher, the movie is extremely atmospheric and creepy. Fisher doesn't rely on quick cutting or sudden close-ups to frighten the audience. He is conservative with those kinds of techniques and the film is mostly built on long takes from distant angles with the frame being menaced by hideous shadows and unsafe corridors. A large portion of the film takes place out of doors, and there are many wonderful scenes set in a shadowy wood with the sun about to fall. Dracula's Castle itself is rather charming compared to most other films (this is also true in Horror Of Dracula). The interior's are lushly decorated, colorful, bright and in good repair... but you still get a sense of something unhinged.. A sense of wrongness about the castle. I think this is because the castle is so barren with only a single inhabitant (the zombie-like caretaker Klove).. It's somehow surreal for such a large empty place to be so cheery. It's a more subtle way of making the castle frightening than filling it with cobwebs and rotting woodwork. The pacing is deliberate, giving the film a hypnotic quality. At times it can be too deliberate and that is one of the movie's main flaws.

I thought the fact that Christopher Lee didn't speak in this film was interesting. I read somewhere that Lee thought the Dracula's lines were just so bad in the script that the just decided to have Dracula stay silent, I will say this turned out to be a good choice. the silent Dracula featured in this film is somehow more ghostly and eerie than most depictions? You really get the sense of `undead'. Andrew Keir was also great as a practical, no-nonsense priest. The rest of the acting is pretty good with Barbara Shelley being the only other stand out and Charles Tingwell being the only performance that was lacking (although his part is so small it doesn't really matter).

Compared to the first film, this film is darker and a bit more violent. A little less safe overall. Because it isn't directly based on the novel, it's slightly less predictable than `Horror Of Dracula'.. We don't know how the story will ultimately end up. I liked it a lot. Despite its flaws it's a classic in it's own right and a must see for any horror movie fan

"Dracula Has Risen From The Grave" is one of the lesser entries to Hammer's great Dracula series. Actually, it is my least favorite and yet this is a decent and sufficiently eerie film that fans of the other Hammer Draculas should give a try. This fourth entry to the Dracula series (the third, if the brilliant "Brides Of Dracula" (1960), which didn't feature Dracula, is not counted) is also the first one not directed by genius Terence Fisher, but by Freddie Francis, the director of "Dr Terror's House Of Horrors" and the least entry to Hammer's Frankenstein series, "The Evil Of Frankenstein". It is therefore no wonder that this does not come near the greatness of its predecessors, and I also liked the next sequel, "Taste The Blood Of Dracula" alot more than this one. Still, the Hammer formula works, and "Dracula Has Risen From The Grave" delivers atmosphere and Gothic eeriness on more than one occasion.

Christopher Lee is once again brilliantly creepy as Dracula, and the rest of the performances are also good. The film features several familiar faces for fans of British Horror, most prominently Rupert Davis, who is probably most famous for his role in one of the absolute greatest British Horror masterpieces, Michael Reeves' "Witchfinder General" (1968) starring Vincent Price. Davis, a generally great character actor, also played roles in another Vincent Price classic, "The Oblong Box" (1969) and in "Curse Of The Crimson Altar" with Christopher Lee, Boris Karloff And Barbara Steele. Beautiful Veronica Carlson, who was in Hammer's "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed" is nice to look at in the female lead, and so is Barbara Ewing ("Torture Garden"). Barry Andrews is not too convincing as the hero character, but he isn't bad either. The settings and photography are good, and the atmosphere is mostly eerie, but the suspense is not as constant as in other Dracula films. Also, the focus on faith somehow doesn't fit in too well, and the plot has several holes. Even though one of the lesser Dracula films from Hammer, however, this is definitely a sufficiently eerie film that any Hammer enthusiasts should not miss! Recommended

People who enjoy Hammer horror movies seem generally to have deemed 'Scars of Dracula' to be the poorest offering in the Hammer/Lee Dracula catalogue (1958-73), based on a paucity of originality. I would disagree and whilst the film may have more flaws than most Hammer films in terms of not so special effects, it has considerable merit and, in my view a good deal of originality. Firstly, one is struck by the peculiar physiognomy of Lee - his face drawn and ashen, almost as though he has been drained of blood, and definitely looking more like one of the undead than in previous films. In tandem with this new image, Lee carries out unprecedented acts of violence: in one maniacal scene, repeatedly stabbing one of his female cohorts with frenzied aggression when he discovers her in bed with an equally doomed guest, and in another scene, sadistically branding his man-servant (Patrick Troughton/Klove) across the back with a glowing sword, drawn from hot coals. In another scene, we find the previously mentioned guest hung like a piece of meat on a hook, which impales his chest. Such violent visuals do not, of course, necessarily add merit to the film (and Christopher Lee later commented that he deplored the violent contents of this particular sequel), but again represent an unprecedented aspect of the Dracula perennials. Possibly the most original and pleasing merit of the film is the location of Dracula's sleeping chamber and the way in which only he can access it. The chamber is set high up in the castle and can only be accessed by a window overlooking an abyss, hundreds of feet above the ground. This literally is the only access, as inside we find that there are no internal doors - only walls of stone. Drawing inspiration from the original Stoker novel, we come to see how Dracula comes and goes from his chamber, as at nightfall he emerges from the window and defies all the laws of physics by crawling up the wall to a window above. Marvellous. There is also an interesting addition where we find Dracula to have developed an ingenious defence mechanism to prevent him being staked while he slumbers. Though his eyes remain closed, the lids are superimposed by glowing red eyes which, understandably, startle and ward off the would-be 'staker'. As said, the film does have its flaws, not least in that it contains more than its fair share of Hammer hum-drum (Carpathian landlords with Cornish accents type-of-thing) and visually there is much to evoke laughter rather than fear. Rubber bats proliferate the film from start to end and the shoe-string sets also inhibit proceedings. There is one point when the 'solid stone' wall of Dracula's sleeping chamber containing the window wobbles momentarily as an intruder (who has managed to gain ingress by means of a bed-curtain hung from the window above) rushes to it, on seeing the curtain being pulled back up. And, though we are given an original demise for the Count, as he bursts into flames whilst holding an iron rail when it is struck by lightening, this sequence is itself shot down in flames as we see that the figure besieged by the inferno is clearly not Christopher Lee, but a masked stuntman. But then it is goofs like this which elicit such affection among Hammer aficionados. This film is well-deserving of a place in a horror film collection and though not great, it does have aspects which make it good.

Although certainly not the best sequel to the Hammer Studios' ingenious Dracula series starring Christopher Lee, Peter Sadsdy's "Taste The Blood Of Dracula" is still a good entry to this wonderful cycle. The original Hammer Dracula of 1958 (aka "Horror Of Dracula") is, of course, unmatched, and some of the sequels, such as "Prince of Darkness" (1966) and "Scars Of Dracula" (1970) are, in my opinion, better than this movie, but "Taste The Blood Of Dracula" certainly has its very own allure and some great,creepy elements that Hammer fans should love to see, such as devil worshiping, black masses and possession.

The film begins with A man kicked out of a stagecoach wakes up in the middle of the forest, hearing some terrible, eerie screams, he starts running in fear, just to witness Count Dracula die another death, this time impaled on a cross. A few years later a bunch of rich gentlemen are bored with their lives, and willing to spare no costs or efforts to get a bit of excitement... needless to say things go bad for the rich gentlemen from here."Taste The Blood Of Dracula" has the typically great Hammer photography and, once again, an eerie soundtrack (allthough some of the other Dracula films had better scores), and all the other typical Hammer elements. Christopher Lee is once again wonderfully eerie in his role, and most the supporting performances are also good. This is one of my favorite Hammer films, but it definitely has a few weaknesses (which I won't give away, since it would mean giving away parts of the plot), but it is overall another great entry to the Dracula series, and Hammer fans should not not miss it.

The problem with putting Victorian-period character in modern day settings is that they look terribly out of place, especially when they're put against '70s youth counter-culture.

The story starts out with a great chase, that ends with Lee's Dracula impaled on a broken carriage wheel, and Cushing's Van Helsing expiring from his wounds. A passerby comes upon the scene, and scoops up some of Dracula's ashes and signet ring. Fast forward to 1972. The passerby is still with us, now having assumed the name Johnnie Alucard (is there anyone who doesn't know what that spells backwards?), and Cushing is back, this time as one of Van Helsing's descendants. After a happinin' "freak out" at an uptight society party, Alucard and his hippie buddies (including Van Helsing's buxom niece) decide to throw a black mass. What they don't realize is that Alucard intends to bring back Dracula from the dead, so it comes as a surprise when Alucard pours blood all over Caroline Munro's ample busom. And who should show up, but Dracula himself. Far out, man.

The big problem with this movie is that Dracula just does not work in the context of hippies. Dracula can work in modern day (witness The Satanic Rites of Dracula, the next in the series), but not when he's surrounded by all of these hippies.

Despite the logical shortcomings of the movie, it's always fun to see Lee and Cushing working together (although it seems as though Lee was having himself written out of these Hammer movies). If you're a fan of Lee or Cushing, watch this just for them.

Lorrimer Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) traces an outbreak of vampirism in a grand country house to an international conglomerate run by Count Dracula (Christopher Lee), who plans to unleash a hideous plague upon mankind.

Picking up the plot where "Dracula A.D. 1972" (1972) left off, Alan Gibson's entertaining potboiler closes the book on Hammer's most profitable franchise, though it's a far cry from the dignity and elegance of Terence Fisher's "Dracula" (1958). Dominated, as always, by Cushing's steely resolve in the role which defined his career, and Lee's majestic portrait of the fiendish Count (still the best cinematic interpretation of Bram Stoker's creation bar none), the film posits an audacious - though unlikely - scenario in which Dracula plots to end his own reign of terror by destroying mankind, using hapless mortal disciples to do his dirty work. Don Houghton's busy script mixes intrigue and espionage (Cushing only becomes involved after being tapped by MI5 for his knowledge of occult practices, following their investigation of several high-ranking Establishment figures who have fallen prey to Dracula's influence) with traditional elements of Gothic horror (such as a country house with a cellarful of vampires), and Gibson plots a course through proceedings with ruthless efficiency.

Less 'modish' than its immediate predecessor, the movie nevertheless shoehorns some gratuitous female nudity into a black mass sequence which is referenced time and again during the first half of the film. The supporting cast includes William Franklyn, Michael Coles, Joanna Lumley (as Cushing's granddaughter), and Freddie Jones as a terrified scientist forced by Dracula to create a new strain of bubonic plague. First released in the US in slightly edited form as "Count Dracula and His Vampire Bride", though why anyone should think that was a better title than the original is a complete mystery. This movie is fun for fans and worth watching to see Lee and Cushing together for the last time in a Dracula film.

Like most of the classic tales, Frankenstein has had a twist put on it by the fantastic Hammer studios. It has actually been done by Hammer many times, but this film is the one that sticks closest to the original source material. That's not to say that it sticks to it entirely, not by a long shot; as Terence Fisher has still found than enough room for changes to the classic tale, thus making this film a fresh take on the classic tale. Peter Cushing stars as Baron Frankenstein; a role which may well be his finest of all time. Cushing's Frankenstein is more malevolent than the character usually is, giving this film a different twist on the tale from the start. In the Universal classic, Frankenstein was a mad scientist that realised his mistake, and thus the audience was able to forgive him after he repented his sins. Here, we have no such luck; the Frankenstein in this film is a completely morally bankrupt character that seeks no redemption for his sins.

We follow Frankenstein from being a boy and taking control of the Frankenstein estate. It is then that he meets his tutor and later collaborator on his experiments, Paul Krempe. We then follow the two as they conduct experiments in an attempt to bring the living back to life, a la the classic story. It's also a bonus to see Frankenstein in color as most, if not all, of the Frankenstein films before this one were in black and white. Naturally, the inclusion of Peter Cushing in the lead role does this film no end of favors and despite his character being so awful, we are still able like him just because it's Peter Cushing. Cushing's co-star is Robert Urquhart, who plays his tutor. Urquhart does well with the role and it's a shame that the actor never made more notable films because he's not bad at all. The cast is topped off by Cushing's long time collaborator and a man that would go on to become one of Hammer's biggest stars - the excellent Christopher Lee, who does a grand job in a campy turn as the monster itself.

The Curse of Frankenstein is one of Hammer's best production, this stands tall as a solid entry in their oeuvre and is recommended to horror fans

The Revenge Of Frankenstein is the second instalment in Hammer studio's Frankenstein series. The first film, The Curse Of Frankenstein, was the company's debut horror feature and a commercial success. It paved the way for a plethora of horror films and made 'stars' of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Lee is absent from Revenge. but Cushing returns in the titular role along with director Terence Fisher and writer Jimmy Sangster.

Having narrowly escaped the guillotine, Dr./Baron Frankenstein retreats to a new town to pledge his trade. Adopting the 'cunning' pseudonym 'Dr. Stein', he opens two medical practices. One serves the wealthy, financing the second which treats the poor and needy. This humanitarian/philanthropist set-up masks the fact that both practices support, in terms of money and body parts respectively, the good doctor's true interests. He has a secret laboratory in a disused wine cellar where he continues his infamous experiments. After three years in the new town his practice is such a success that the local medical council is becoming redundant. The members hold an emergency meeting to discuss the problem of Dr. Stein.

Terence Fisher's Frankenstein series concentrates on the doctor (and in turn science) as the source of 'evil'. Frankenstein's blind ambition and lack of moral code is the real source of horror. This premise is strikingly different from earlier Frankenstein stories. In the Mary Shelley original, both the doctor and the 'monster' are portrayed as victims of science. In James Whale's celebrated duet the doctor is the misguided hero. In both cases the doctor is misled by scientific ambition but retains a strong moral code throughout. The sinister Dr. Pretorius in Bride Of Frankenstein could be seen as a better prototype for Fisher's doctor.

In Revenge. rather than retreading the familiar experiment of the previous film(s), a spin has been put on events. Here Frankenstein's construction of the 'monster' has reached its zenith and is given short shrift. Instead the problem and focus of the film is that of the brain. A living brain is required so transplants are in order. Cue a bloodied brain slopping into a specimen jar. Loopy proceedings include a priceless hand-eye co-ordination experiment (every lab should have one) and a cannibalistic chimp with the brain of an orang-utan. The brain transplantation theme is taken the logical step further in Frankenstein Created Woman, which involves the transfer of the soul.

Although it evokes some viewer sympathy, the 'monster' is not as innocent as the creations in earlier films and in a way deserves its fate. Its appearance is not that impressive either, when it goes on the rampage the facial expression and make-up reminded me of Michael Palin. The fact that the 'monster' starts to regress back to his half paralytic state suggests that the condition stemmed from the brain, Frankenstein's diagnosis was wrong.

This is the only error Frankenstein makes. His assistant, Dr. Kleve, and workers (the cleaner is an 'expert' on zoology) make them for him. Thus the experiment ends in disaster. If Dr Kleve had not helped Frankenstein with the final transplantation, he could be considered to have been a 'plant' from the medical council. The final creation is of course ludicrous. How could the body be a perfect likeness? Still, it paved the way for further sequels.

My favorite of the series, Hammer's fourth Frankenstein entry is an offbeat, fascinating gothic masterpiece.

The film ingeniously opens up with the guillotine execution of a drunken murderer (played with hardy relish by Hammer vet Duncan Lamont), unintentionally witnessed by his young boy, Hans. Years later, Hans (Robert Morris) is employed by the half-witted Dr. Hertz (Thorley Walters) who has taken in the ardent Baron Frankenstein ( Peter Cushing). Forgetting Freddie Francis' Evil Of Frankenstein, a so-so homage to Universal, Fisher picks up the series where he left off and firmly relates that the Baron is really the monster (the character is here introduced as being brought back to life through his own body-freezing experiment).

At the local tavern, Hans gets into a fierce brawl with a trio of spoiled, arrogant aristocrats (Peter Blythe, Barry Warren, Derek Fowlds) after they insult the twisted and deformed Christina (Susan Denberg). Later that night after Hans consummates his love for Christina, the three delinquents break into the tavern and kill Christina's father, the landlord. Since he refuses to tell where he was during the murderous event, Hans is brought to trial, accused of murder and guillotined like his dad. Christina witnesses this and immediately commits suicide by drowning herself.

In the meantime, the brilliant Baron has contrived a way to capture the human soul ("Bodies are easy to come by, souls are not," proclaims Frankenstein). He gets a hold of Hans' body, captures his soul, and transfers it into the wretchedly salvaged corpse of Christina. Luckily, the Baron is also a pioneer in cosmetic surgery, and under the faithful hands of Dr. Hertz (the Baron's hands are burned) is able to transform Christina into a beautiful blond bombshell. As she now harbors the vengeful soul of Hans, Christina is able to use her seductive charm to kill the ones responsible for her father's and Hans' deaths.

Not for all tastes, I personally love this movie think it gets better with repeated viewings. It's totally unconventional as far as "Frankenstein" films go, and it takes a director like Fisher, an actor like Cushing and a screenwriter like Anthony Hinds to make it succeed on every level. Hind's script wastes no opportunity at overlapping a number of morbid sequences (two executions, a murder, a suicide, and the Baron's unworldly experiments) to lead up to the third act, which involves Christina's revenge on the three antagonists. Add other bizarre circumstances such as Christina carting around Hans' severed head as inspiration for vengeance, and later conversing to herself in his voice, and you have a satisfying horror tale to say the least.

Fisher was always quoted as saying that Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed was his favorite film because of the "love story" aspect of it, but Frankenstein Created Woman is arguably his most romance-driven effort. The relationship between Hans and Christina is what brings the story to the predicament that it's in, and Christina's unexpected discovery of her lover's beheading, followed by her own suicide, is one of the director's most powerful scenes.

Although he's given less to do here then in the other Frankenstein films, Cushing is awesome to watch in every motion and every shred of dialogue. He's kinder than usual this time, even displaying moments of concern for the young leads when their lives are at stake, but Cushing plays him cold, chauvinistic and determined, giving the impression that any warmth he expresses is only to boost his personal goals (such as in the closing moments of the film). His refusal to accommodate the newly revived, confused Christina's request for a mirror is a brilliantly subdued example of his true character.

Although Polish-born Susan Denberg only had several other acting assignments (including the "I Mudd" episode of Star Trek and the Stuart Whitman vehicle, An American Dream) and got the job because of her spread in Playboy (often the only requirement to star in a Hammer Horror), she excels in the role. Even though another actress dubbed her voice, she convincingly changes from innocent, suicidal ugly duckling to confused, suicidal and possessed beauty. But the performances are great all around; from Robert Morris' gentle yet easily enraged Hans to Thorley Walter's intoxicated, bumbling Dr. Hertz, whose fatherly kinship with Christina presents some of the film's most touching moments.
A great film and worth checking out for first time viewers and well worth another look for those who have seen it

Dr Frankenstein has buried his old identity and is now working at an asylum where he basically has complete control and harvests the inmates for their body parts so that he may continue his ghastly experiments on reanimation with the help of an ambitious doctor who has been institutionalised. Using pieces from the asylum's most promising inmates, Frankenstein patches up a horrific brute of a monster who is as sad and tortured as he is grotesque.

Hammer's last Frankenstein film is arguably one of the best of their final years. Director Terence Fisher was back at the helm for one last crack before retiring. Peter Cushing ( sporting a bad wig here) was back in his most famous role. And as usual, Hammer provided a good supporting cast as well as some tight script writing. So the stage was set to give the Frankenstein series one last big hurrah and for the most part, it works completely. The film is a true sequel which is good, as elements from the previous films are incorporated (either for a little in-joking or for plot developments including Frankenstein being burned at the end of Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed) to allow for newer developments to make way. Unlike the Dracula series, one of the strengths of the Frankenstein series was to re-invent itself and look original in every instalment (despite the plots being almost the same). At no point here do you feel like you've been here before and it's all seemingly original material we're given. Logical progression of the story has made Frankenstein more evil and murderous in each instalment and finally Fisher decides to go the full distance and relish the fact that the previously-sane-although-corrupt scientist is now simply a mad killer who doesn't realise the futility of what he's doing. Credit must be given to Cushing as well because his performance verges on the sane/insane and at times you don't know which side of the line he's treading. It's a fitting finale for Cushing in his best cinematic role, even though he could have slept-acted the part now. Shane Briant as his assistant is also pretty good and reminds the viewer of how Frankenstein used to be: a little cold, naive but intelligent and ruthless nonetheless. Dave Prowse plays the part of the monster and through his mannerisms, he manages to turn the creature into a sympathetic and pitiful monster. For the first time, Hammer decided to actually go with an out-and-out monster instead of just some guy with a big head and big boots. That's maybe one of the reasons why so many people dislike this entry. Albeit the suit isn't particularly convincing but it's still believable if you remember this is a mixture of about 60 body parts from different people - it ain't gonna be perfect folks. Gore was upped in the later Hammer films and there are plenty of surgical pleasantries here, with no less a brain transplant revealed in all of it's shocking power. Depending on what version you get, some parts may be censored ( this cuts my rating down half a star since the US DVD is the cut version. Try to find the old laser disc from Japan to see the uncut version) And like the rest of the Hammer films, it wouldn't be a Frankenstein film without the finale where the monster does meet it's maker (but not before a classic Hammer moment where the creature is digging graves during a lightning storm).

To sum up here. Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell is an excellent finale to the Frankenstein series and that's because everyone from the director to the actors to the guys who makes the coffee seem to be on top form here. Check it out.

Dr. Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) has seen his experiments fail time and again, regardless of his intense personal effort. He has put his heart and soul, not to mention people's organs, into his creations, only to foiled with each one. The latest work has been ruined also, this time by the poor timed invasion of Dr. Frankenstein's workspace. The incident has convinced the doctor that he needs to bring in some help, as he can't handle the entire load himself. He turns his attention toward Dr. Karl Holst (Simon Ward), a local doctor who isn't as on edge as Frankenstein, but isn't above underhanded deeds. Frankenstein blackmails Holst into his service, to iron some research that could be the solution to Frankenstein's problems. The solution could rest within the mind of Dr. Frederick Brandt (George Pravda), who has cracked the code on cryogenics. He has been able to freeze a human brain, a process which Frankenstein is dying to put into motion. But Brandt has gone insane and is locked up in a mental institution, which of course means his precious data is locked up as well. Frankenstein believes if he can transplant Brandt's brain into a normal donor, the madness will vanish. Can Dr. Frankenstein make this experiment work and unlock the cryogenic data, or will this be another failure?

As Hammer rolled out sequels, the studio's flame seemed to be close to extinction, but as it turned out, the fire still burned. In Terence Fisher's Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, we see that with the right assortment of talent, in front of and behind the camera, Hammer could knock out some terrific horror cinema. In this, Hammer's fifth Frankenstein picture, you'd think the source would be thin, as it was with the studio's Dracula movies. But instead, Fisher is able to weave in some great new twists and retain the tone of the series, which results in a well crafted production, perhaps one of the director's finest projects. I do think the writing, which is superb on the whole, does abandon some subplots in haste, which is a disappointment. If these smaller lines were fleshed out more, who knows how good this film could have been. The cast is excellent as well, with Peter Cushing out in front of the pack. His turn is one of his best in the series, focused and on his game, which adds a lot to the movie. The rest of the cast is solid also, which is good news, since the movie follows a decent number of characters. I would rank this with Hammer's top genre pictures and right behind Frankenstein Created Women ( which to me is the best in the series)

To start off here, many fellow Hammer fans seem to dislike Freddy Francis' "The Evil Of Frankenstein" of 1964, and, after watching it again recently, I must say that I do not agree. Sure, this third Frankenstein film from Hammer is also doubtlessly the weakest entry to the cycle. But it is the ingenious Frankenstein cycle I am discussing, and even this weakest entry is still highly entertaining and recommendable. The film may have its faults, but, overall, it maintains the Hammer-typical, delightfully Gothic atmosphere, and the great Peter Cushing is, as always, brilliant.

The film does not logically begin where "The Revenge Of Frankenstein" ended (and neither do the following sequels). Supposedly, some years have passed and Baron Victor Frankenstein is now making experiments somewhere in the woods, assisted by a young scientist named Hans. After their body-snatching activities are discovered by a priest, the Baron and his assistant are forced to flee to Frankenstein's old home, his castle near Karlstadt to which he was never supposed to return? Sure, the film has its weaknesses. This is the first, and only Frankenstein film from Hammer that was not directed by genius Terence Fisher (I am not counting screenwriter Jimmy Sangster's "Horror Of Frankenstein" of 1970, which I have so far refused to watch since it doesn't star Peter Cushing). While Fisher can easily be considered the greatest Hammer director, Freddie Francis, who directed this one, is only mediocre. The only other Hammer flick by Francis is "Dracula Has Risen From The Grave", one of the weaker entries to the great "Dracula" series with Christopher Lee. Francis furthermore directed several worthwhile films for Amicus Productions, such as "Torture Garden" and "Dr. Terror's House Of Horrors". One of the reasons why some fellow Hammer fans dislike this one is arguably the fact that "The Evil Of Frankenstein" brings us the nicest Baron Frankenstein of the series, which is not a weakness in my opinion, as I have always sympathized with the sinister Baron. Frankenstein was not really a villain in the other films, in my opinion, (except for the fifth entry "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed", in which he was truly evil), as he did the things he did convinced of doing them for the good of mankind. He gradually gets more obsessed throughout the series, however, which is delightful to watch, and he is not as unscrupulous in the achievements of his goals here. The Baron is not as obsessed in this sequel, but, and that I do consider a weakness, he is also less ingenious. The brilliant and dedicated Baron Frankenstein we know is not supposed to endanger his work, only because he is enraged about the theft of a gold ring, and he certainly isn't supposed to be tricked by a drunk hypnotist who is nothing but a sideshow attraction. In spite of this lack of logic, however, the film is still highly entertaining and shouldn't be missed by a Hammer fan. The atmosphere is, as always, great. The brilliant Peter Cushing is, of course, the film's main quality. Cushing, THE gentleman of Horror, truly is one of the greatest Horror icons of all-time, and while he played in many other ingenious films, it is Hammer's Frankenstein cycle that made him the immortal icon he is. Apart from Cushing, the performances are not too good, only Katy Wilde is great in the lovable role of a mute beggar girl. Peter Woodthorpe and Sandor Elès are decent in their roles, but not especially worth mentioning.

All things considered, this is the weakest entry to the Frankenstein series with Peter Cushing, but it is nonetheless highly entertaining Gothic fun that is not to be missed by a Hammer fan. I do recommend the other films over this one though, my personal favorite is the ingeniously deranged fourth film, "Frankenstein Created Woman" of 1967. The entire series is great however, and even this weakest entry is highly recommended

We open to a Chinese man named Kah (Shen Chan as Chan Shen) hiking through the Transylvanian forests in search of Count Draculas (John Forbes-Robertson stepping in for Christopher Lee) Castle. He doesn't take too long to find it and proceeds into Draculas crypt. He appears to be attacked by some bats that for some reason don't have to flap their wings as they just sort of glide along, almost as if their on strings! But then I thought to myself that a classy production like this wouldn't use rubber bats on strings, would it? Dracula rises from his stone coffin complete with bright red lipstick, white face paint and slicked back hair, and ask's who dares disturb him. Kah says in Chinese "I am the high Priest of the 7 Golden Vampires in Szechwan, China. When the Vampires walked my temple was the centre of all power in the area" Kah then goes on to say the Vampires are sleeping and that he would like Dracula to resurrect the 7 Golden Vampires again. Even though Kah speaks in Chinese Dracula understands every word he has said and gives him the cold shoulder and says he doesn't do favours for anyone and then decides to take Kah's form and travel to China, bring the 7 Golden Vampires back, rule the area by himself and help spread vampirism throughout the world. We are then informed we are in 'Chung King 1904'. Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) is giving a lecture at a local university to a group of young Chinese men on the threat of vampirism. He tells them of a legend where in a nearby village called Ping Wei a local man managed to destroy one of the 7 Golden Vampires before the others slit his throat. The students are unimpressed with such tales. Except one, Hsi Ching (David Chiang) who come from the village Van Helsing spoke about. He ask's Van Helsing to go to his village with his brothers, all 6 of them too many to bother listing, and their only sister Mai Kwei (Szu Shih as Shih Szu), hey it's a large family OK?, to help them rid Ping Wei of the 7, well 6 now, Golden Vampires. Van Helsing would like too but claims an expedition to the village would cost a lot of money. Just then, as if by luck Van Helsing's son Leyland (Robin Stewart) and a rich widow on a world tour named Vanessa Buren (Julie Ege) who he picked up in a nightclub, turn up. That's the funding problem solved as Vanessa thinks a "Vampire hunt sounds exciting". They all set off for Ping Wei to destroy the Vampire menace, their zombie slaves and rid the land of vampirism. Directed by Roy Ward Baker this was Hammers ninth and final film to feature Dracula, and it was made after The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973). The script by Don Houghton tries hard to mix both vampirism and martial arts. It comes across as a little silly at time but is none the less pretty good fun, and at least it's never dull or boring. The fights are ok and contain some decent violence and gore. There's lots of zombies which look good, the 7 Golden Vampires look silly though, they look like zombies with fangs and a golden mask that cover the top half of the faces. The flying bats look awful as do the the women who 'struggle' to free them selves from being tied down to sacrificial altars they just move their heads a little and bend their legs a bit, come on girls put some effort into it your about to have all your blood drained by vampires for gods sake! Acting is OK, obviously Cushing couldn't join in the Kung-Fu fighting so just sort of stands there and seems a little underused throughout the second half of the film. Technically the film is quite strong with nice music, photography, sets and editing. And why does everyone in this film speak perfect English? Even though just about everyone is supposed to be Chinese. Sit back, don't ask too many questions and enjoy as there are a lot worse ways to spend 90 odd minutes of your time.

After his masterpiece "Dracula" (aka. "Horror Of Dracula") from 1958 Hammer's greatest director, Terence Fisher, did not yet return with another film starring Christopher Lee as Dracula, but with an eerie, atmospheric and downright brilliant sequel about a different vampire, and the greatest of all Vampire hunters, Dr. Van Helsing (once again outstandingly played by the immortal Peter Cushing). And this first sequel to the series, "The Brides Of Dracula" of 1960, became a Gothic masterpiece of its own that almost reaches the brilliance of the original.


On her way through Transylvania, Marianne Danielle (Yvonne Monalur), a young french lady who is about to become a boarding school teacher, gets invited to spend the night at the Castle of Baroness Meinster (Martita Hunt). Little does she know, that the Couness keeps her own son locked up in the castle. For good reasons, as the young Baron Meinster (David Peel) has an insatiable thirst for the blood of young beauties...

"Brides Of Dracula" is a haunting, highly atmospheric Gohic tale from the very beginning. The great photography, and creepy locations, as well as the outstanding and eerie score build up a mesmerizing atmosphere. The unforgettable Peter Cushing is, as always, brilliant as Dr. Van Helsing, the role of his life besides Baron Frankenstein. But even besides Cushing, who is one of my favorite actors of all-time, the acting is great. David Peel is great and genuinely scary as Baron Meinster. This creepy Baron Meinster is one of the truly memorable vampires in motion picture history, and I it sad that Peel, who played the role with such greatness, didn't get more roles after this film and appeared only in two more movies. Martita Hunt is excellent and eerie as the Baroness, and so is Freda Jackson as her maid. Yvonne Monlaur is a stunning beauty, and greatly plays her role in he female lead with a lot of grace. And even the supporting performances are very good.

If you like films from the great Hammer Studios, "Brides Of Dracula" is a film you must not miss. The only real flaw of this film is that I found it too easy to defeat the vampire in the very end and maybe a minor issue but I was never sure why this film was called " Brides Of Dracula" when Dracula doesn't appear in the film. Anyhow, this is a wonderfully creepy and atmospheric Gohic tale with great performances, above all the brilliant Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. "Brides Of Dracula" is one of the essential Hammer films and, as far as I am considered, Hammer's best Vampire flick after "Horror Of Dracula" and Robert Young's brilliant 1971 masterpiece "Vampire Circus".

To sum up, "Brides Of Dracula" is essential Hammer-brilliance that no horror fan can afford to miss!

I finally took at look at this film after avoiding it for many years and it turned out to be the disappointment I thought it would be, anyway shorty after Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed. Hammer tried to recapture lightning in a bottle with an updated remake( or reboot as they call it now) of their big hit Curse Of Frankenstein. They did this with a younger Dr. Frankenstein, putting Peter Cushing out to pasture. Simultaneously, a greater emphasis was placed on black humor. Although the result is interesting, it's ultimately pretty disappointing.

Ralph Bates, whom Hammer valiantly tried to turn into the next Cushing or Christopher Lee, stars as Victor Frankenstein. As always, he is interested in the secrets of life and death, and collects body parts for his experiments through less than lawful means. The love interests are his housekeeper, Alys (Kate O'Mara), and the woman who loves him, Elizabeth (Veronica Carlson). Assisted by squeamish friend Wilhelm Kassner (Graham James), Victor crafts a living man, murdering Elizabeth's father to procure a healthy brain. The monster (David Prowse, best known as Darth Vader) has a foul temper, however, and a murderous streak. Frankenstein puts this to good use by having the monster eliminate his enemies one by one. Meanwhile, the death of Elizabeth's father has left her a pauper and she runs to the shelter of Victor, but she doesn't quite count on the reception that she receives.

A more vicious and sociopathic Frankenstein than one usually sees in these films, Ralph Bates portrays the title character as a completely unlikeable and vile creature. This no doubt helped contribute to the box office disappointment of this relaunch of the series. Whereas Cushing played Frankenstein as a single-mindedly determined man who doesn't let things like laws get in his way, Bates' version seems to almost revel in bloodshed and cruelty. This treatment makes audience identification nearly impossible.

The supporting cast is very good, other than Graham James, who is nondescript at best. O'Mara makes a good saucy wench, and Carlson is drop dead gorgeous and charming to boot. Especially outstanding are Dennis Price as a resurrection artist who supplies Frankenstein with his raw materials, and Joan Rice as his eagerly complicit wife. They are both funny and likeable, which is a rather odd turnaround for a pair of grave-robbers. Yet it works quite well in context.

This being a Hammer film, there's plenty of cleavage, not to mention improbable, gravity-defying bosoms. The gore is surprisingly limited; indeed, it's hardly as bloody as the 1957 version, making the R rating quite dubious indeed. As usual for Hammer productions, the set design is first-rate and the photography is attractive though not flashy. The comedy element is not outrageously funny, but it does have its moments. One of the most notable is the scene where Victor graciously introduces himself to his creation, only to be knocked silly by Prowse's sweeping backhand. The film has an oddly unsatisfying conclusion that seems to plainly leave the way open for a sequel that never came. After this film it was back to the Cushing/Frankenstein with the final film in the series " Frankenstein And The Monster From Hell"