Customer Reviews

Draculas: 4 Film Favorites (Horror of Dracula / Dracula Has Risen from the Grave / Taste the Blood of Dracula / Dracula A.D. 1972)

5 star:		(26)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Skipping the Hammer sequels Warners don't have the rights to - the Christopher Lee-free Brides of Dracula, Dracula Prince of Darkness, Scars of Dracula and The Satanic Rites of Dracula - this is nonetheless an excellent collection of some of the best in the series.

Hammer's groundbreaking 1958 version of Dracula (aka Horror of Dracula) is still one of the very best despite the many liberties Jimmy Sangster's concise and highly effective script takes with Bram Stoker's novel to whittle it down to an hour-and-a-half. It's not just the names that have been changed around and the cast of characters greatly reduced to Hammer's budget levels (admirably disguised here by Bernard Robinson's excellent production design). John Van Eyssen's Jonathan Harker is no longer a lawyer, but here is posing as a librarian to get into Dracula's castle with an ulterior motive - presumably on the grounds that the audience knows going in just what Dracula is so there's no point putting the hero through all that mystery when there's staking to be done. The budget doesn't stretch to the voyage and arrival of the ghost ship Demeter or even a Renfield for that matter, and this Dracula has no social interaction with his intended victims in Whitby or London - in fact, he never even leaves the continent. Nor is the vampire fascinated with Harker's intended - here he simply seeks her out as revenge. Yet the changes work surprisingly well, and even throws in a few good twists like the location of Dracula's hiding place.

Although he doesn't have much screen time, Christopher Lee is inspired casting, a feral, vicious creature rather than a Eurotrash smoothie while a very agile Peter Cushing makes a surprisingly physical Van Helsing, the final fight between the good doctor and the evil count surprisingly energetic and violent before the best of the studio's ashes to ashes, dust-to-dust finales. Although rather sedate by today's standards, this film still has a surprising degree of energy and it's easy to see why it made had such a profound impact on the horror genre for decades to come. The first colour version of the tale, it made a big selling point of being able to see the blood in all its vivid hues of red, although it also makes much play on the vampire's female victims being absolutely gagging for it (perhaps not so surprising with Peter Cushing and Michael Gough as the male leads), setting the groundwork for the tits'n'fangs formula that would become the studio's bread and butter over the next couple of decades. A surprisingly cheap picture, thanks to Bernard Robinson's elegant production design and fine direction from Terence Fisher before the drink got to him, it never looks cheap: if anything, it's rather seductively good looking. Unfortunately this is slightly compromised by Warners' widescreen DVD, which feels overcropped at 1.85:1 (the film was intended to be shown in 1.66:1) and there's also a slight wobble at the end of the closing credits.


For the US release of Hammer's fourth Dracula film (only the third to actually feature Christopher Lee, the Count sitting out Brides of Dracula), Warner Bros. used a one-sheet of a woman's neck with a sticking plaster on it, following the title Dracula Has Risen From the Grave with the single word 'Obviously.' The film itself, however, is anything but tongue-in-cheek, and played deadly straight with a conviction the series gradually lost over the years. It's probably the best-looking of all the Hammer Dracula sequels, and also the first where Christopher Lee actually speaks. As usual he's almost a background figure for much of the film, with the bulk of the film carried by Barry Andrews' atheist student romancing Veronica Carlson's niece of Rupert Davies' Monsignor, who inadvertently starts the blood flowing again when his attempt to exorcise Dracula's castle only results in the Count being revived from his icy grave by blood from a convenient cut. Finding himself cast out of his home and aided by Ewan Hooper terrified priest (Renfield presumably being otherwise engaged), Dracula determines to take his revenge on Davies and his kin, stopping off en route for a light snack with Barbara Ewing's busty redheaded barmaid.

With a prologue that takes place before Dracula, Prince of Darkness and the main body of the film taking place a year later, it takes some liberties with the vampire mythology: the revived Dracula's first appearance is as a reflection, he has no problem removing crosses from willing girls' necks while a stake alone is no longer enough to kill him: you have to pray as well, which is a bit of a problem when your hero doesn't believe in God. Yet they're not as jarring as they might be, the latter resulting in one particularly memorably gory sequence. The change in director from Terence Fisher, sadly in decline at that time and unavailable due to a car crash, to Freddie Francis gives the film less of a production-line feel than most of the studio's Dracula series and, despite an awkward filter in some scenes and a distinctly jaundiced look for the Count, the film has a much more expansive look and feel almost unique in the series, with a striking and well-employed rooftop set courtesy of undervalued production designer Bernard Robinson and some relatively unfamiliar Pinewood standing sets rather than the overused backlot at Bray. He gets good performances too, with a particularly nice turn from Michael Ripper as an amiable innkeeper (as opposed to his usual miserable and terrified innkeepers).

Unfortunately while the DVD boasts excellent colour and definition, some shots look oddly distorted, as if stretched, and the sound wanders in and out of synch far too often for comfort. On the plus side it does restore the censor cuts of about half a dozen gallons of blood spurting from Dracula's chest after he gets staked and includes the original trailer.


Taste the Blood of Dracula follows on so directly from Dracula Has Risen From the Grave that, after one particularly bizarre piece of deus ex machina that borders on the inspired, it begins with Roy Kinnear literally stumbling into the last scene of the movie. On a less welcome note it also marks the point at which an increasingly reticent Christopher Lee was reduced to a cameo figure as the Count - it's not until the halfway point that he's resurrected in a less than convincing display of special effects. Until then much of the film is carried, and rather well, by Geoffrey Keen's Bible-bashing strict disciplinarian Victorian dad, the kind of man you can set your watch by as he sets off to do `charity work' in the East End with his respectable friends John Carson and Peter Sallis saving fallen women - about two each once a month in Roy Hudd's brothel discreetly located in the backrooms of a soup kitchen. It's there that he and his pals are surprised playing horsie by Ralph Bates' dissolute disinherited aristo who has sold his soul to the Devil and offers to broker the same deal for them if they'll buy Dracula's cape and blood for him, reasoning that "Having tried everything that your narrow imaginations can suggest, you're bored to death with it all, right?" Naturally it all ends badly with Bates getting a severe case of indigestion after drinking the blood of the title and getting kicked to death by his new friends, conveniently providing Dracula with a new body and a new mission - to destroy all three men through their children (a typical role-call of amply-bosomed totty, future BBC regulars and supporting actors who never made it to the major leagues in the forms of Linda Hayden, Isla Blair, Martin Jarvis and Anthony Higgins in the days when he was still calling himself Anthony Corlan) while Michael Ripper's ineffectual detective displays a pronounced lack of interest in the mounting body count.

The idea of the sins of the fathers being revenged by their children is a good one, offering both a neat twist and a reason for Lee's extremely limited screen time that keeps him very much to the sidelines until the disappointing finale, but it's certainly one of the more entertaining sequels and, a couple of lapses such as the resurrection scene aside, boasts superior and atmospheric direction from Peter Sasdy with some surprisingly graceful camerawork. It's also the last of the Hammer Draculas that looks like they spent some money on it - when they churned out Scars of Dracula the same year, it looked like they'd spent all their money on this one and had only pocket change and whatever was left over in the studio wardrobe for that!

Warner's DVD offers a good widescreen transfer with the original trailer as the only extra.




For reasons known only to the author, Bram Stoker's Dracula never included the line "Sergeant, I'll bet you a pound to a pinch of s**t that there's a little piece of hash at that party, and if there is, I've got them.", but the early 70s saw that particular oversight put right. Dracula A.D. 1972 saw Hammer trying to pump new life into the old Count with a new creative team whose big idea was basically to rehash the plot of Taste the Blood of Dracula in the 1970s with Christopher Neame in the Ralph Bates role as Johnny Alucard, here conning a thrill-seeking group of with it kids (Michael Kitchen and Caroline Munro among them) into making a date with the Devil with a Black Mass at the deconsecrated church that not only holds Lawrence Van Helsing's body (Lawrence? Whatever happened to Abraham?) and Dracula's ashes. "Okay, okay. But if we do get to summon up the big daddy with the horns and the tail, he gets to bring his own liquor, his own bird and his own pot."

As with the Godzilla films, the main attraction is kept off the screen for most of the running time - top-billed Christopher Lee's role is probably smaller in this than any other in the series, four brief scenes probably totalling no more than ten minutes. Worse still, looking more like Peter Sellers than Transylvanian aristocracy, he brings nothing except continuity to the part: he does what is asked of him with professionalism, but that's about it. Instead the bulk of the film is carried by Neame's Malcolm McDowell wannabe, second-billed Peter Cushing as Van Helsing's grandson Lorimar, Stephanie Beacham and Michael Coles' open-minded cop ("There is a Satan." "Of course. Otherwise we wouldn't need a police force, would we?"). Yet despite the clumsily handled prologue and finale it's fairly entertaining even if it is completely derivative, perhaps even more entertaining now than when it was released because its hip and happening trappings are far funnier than the intentional comic relief - not least Johnny Alucard urging "Dig the music, kids!" during the black mass - and it's a lot better than Dracula 2000.

The DVD also includes the wonderfully over the top trailer - "Are you ready? He's ready. He's waiting to freak you out - right out of this world!" - but not the short making of documentary from when the picture was still called Dracula Today (other rejected titles included Dracula Chases the Mini Girls and Dracula Chelsea '72!).

NO movie company EVER gave a more scenic, rustic,*GOTHIC* ambience than HAMMER STUDIOS!. AND!, as lasting and classic as Lugosi was, Christopher Lee was the PERFECT Dracula!. Hammer began it all with "HORROR OF DRACULA" in 1958, and it was gory for that time!... Several years passed, and the first sequal was 'DRACULA PRINCE Of DARKNESS {My Favorite,and I NEVER understood why this wasn't on this set instead of A.D 72???}.So outstanding was this 2nd installment, that HAMMER,themselves,realized they had something special!. Only to follow were;'DRACULA HAS RISEN'...,'TASTE THE BLOOD'...,and 'SCARS OF DRACULA{highly UNDERATED!}. Finally;Satanic Rites, and A.D.'72. ... But HAMMER did it right!; Little nuances :>{Lamps on carriages, English Countryside, candles,Castles}!!!.
It is a horror fans dream to have such timeless movies to go along with outstanding scripts!,and just 'atmospheric' scenery alone boggles!... HAMMER horror is MORE than enough to quench the pallet!; THUS!; to top it all off ! ; *Christopher Lee* IS at his...The VERY BEST !!!!
BUY IT!

Warner Brothers has released an excellent collection of horror movies from Hammer Studios starring Christopher Lee as Count Dracula. They span the great gothic era of cinema history. Released in 1958, "Horror of Dracula" was Christopher Lee's first movie as Dracula. In 1958, the gothic era was begining to surge. [Mario Bava's gothic masterpiece, "Black Sunday" (a.k.a. "Mask of Satan"),was released in 1960.] "Horror of Dracula," in my opinion, is the best of this collection beause of its gorgeous settings, and the plot followed Bram Stoker's novel more closely than any other film adaptation of "Dracula." Peter Cushing also starred as Dracula's nemesis, Dr. Van Helsing. It is always great fun to watch Lee and Cushing battle each other for survival. "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave" is the least impressive of the four movies. Dracula victimizes the relatives of a priest who placed a cross on his castle. Some of the jargon and sexual innuendoes seemed inappropriate for the 1800s setting. Dracula manaces the priest's niece, played by the beautiful Veronica Carlson who was also delightful to watch in Hammer's "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed." The next movie in the collection is "Taste the Blood of Dracula," which is my second favorite movie in the collection. Three wealthy, seemingly upstanding businessmen have unwittingly relased Dracula after killing his servant. Dracula seeks revenge by having the three businessmen killed by the hands of their own children who are young adults. Some of the scenes are rather cruel and gruesome. Under the spell of the vampire, the children appear to enjoy killing their fathers. "Dracula A.D. 1972" was a wise choice for ending this collection. In 1972, the gothic era was coming to a close. Mario Bava had just released his last gothic materpiece, "Baron Blood." "Dark Shadows," the gothic daytime soap opera, had ended its six-year run the year before. In "Dracula A.D. 1972," Peter Cushing returns as Dr. Van Helsing to battle Dracula once again. (Cushing was absent from the previous two movies.) "Dracula A.D. 1972" is very dated with its hippie language and songs; however, it is still fun to watch. I prefer period pieces that are set in the 1800s. They seem to weather the test of time. I've noticed that in all four movies, Dracula is always seekng revenge against entire familes even though only one member of the family may have harmed him. I only wish Warner Brothers would relase more 4 movie collections of Hammer Productions starring Christopher Lee as Dracula, the vampire who, like Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger, can never die.

This nice little four pack is a great introduction to Hammer horror movies, which are admittedly an acquired taste today. When the Hammers came out in the 50's to 70's they were notorious for being shocking (showing --gasp!--blood!). Needless to say, they will seem tame to a modern audience.

On the other hand, we don't get the graphic excess of today's horror movies, and there is a vitality to the proceedings missing from the stage-based look of the Universal predecessors. Dracula doesn't just strike a pose when stalking a victim--he runs across a room and lunges at him. Van Helsing would similarly scamper over a table to get his stake into a vampire.

A big plus is that the Hammer Dracula films feature one or both of two of the best character actors ever - Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.

Be aware that the fantasy side of things is toned down. Dracula doesn't turn into a bat or cling to walls, for instance.

Finally, The quality of the movies is not consistent. "Horror of Dracula" is by far the standout, and by the time things get to "1972", inspiration (and the interest of the actors) has fallen considerably. Still, for four movies this is a great price.

four Christopher Lee Hammer Dracula films . all of them very fun and scary in varying degrees . proper aspect ratios , subtitles . great prints . basically the keys to the kingdom . enjoy .

HORROR OF DRACULA: 3.5/5 Stars - Yes, this is the one that started Hammer Film's longest running series . . . Yes, this is the film that cemented Hammer Films as the new leader of quality horror entertainment (after the wildly successful 'The Curse of Frankenstein' the year before) . . . Yes, this is the film that introduced us to Christopher Lee as one of the great vampires of the cinema . . . And yet, I just don't think that 'Horror of Dracula' is as good as its reputation. I have a lot of problems with this movie, but I'll begin with the changes from the original Bram Stoker story. Now I'm no stickler who insists that film adaptations have to match their literary sources to a "T," but the changes that were made for this one were, for the most part, unnecessary and detrimental. For instance, turning Jonathan Harker into a member of Van Helsing's vampire slaying circle who knows fully well what Dracula is might seem like a cool idea, but as it is executed it's really quite pointless, and makes the beginning portion of the movie feel like a waste of time. In addition, instead of getting a fine assortment of characters to help Van Helsing track Dracula down (Arthur Holmwood, Quincy Morris, Harker), we get a stiff, boring character played by Michael Gough in a very bad performance (I've liked him in other films I've seen, including Hammer's own 'Phantom of the Opera,' but he's just plain bad in this one). Furthermore, the whole story feels overly condensed and simplified, eliminating many of the elements that made the original Dracula story such a classic. But perhaps the greatest offense lies in the handling of Dracula himself (and I'm not talking about Christopher Lee's performance, which is exquisite). In the book (and in the Bela Lugosi version as well), Dracula if permitted enough time and given a chance to become a real character in and of himself; he's an identity as well as a threat. In Hammer's version, however, this is not the case. Dracula is simply the menace that must be overcome, but ironically loses menace due to this lack of character development.
Alright, now that I've given my main complaints about the movie, let me say that 'Horror of Dracula' is FAR from being a bad movie (or even a lesser Hammer film). It is most certainly entertaining, and has that classic Hammer feel to it, complete with great production design and assured direction by Terense Fisher, Hammer's chief architect of the studio's classic horror output. It's a very energetic picture. And, of course, Christopher Lee makes for a wonderfully imposing Count, even if his character isn't given the same impact as he has in the book. But the main reason I like this movie is for Peter Cushing's wonderful performance as Van Helsing. After perfectly portraying twisted evil as Victor Frankenstein, he gives us a truly noble heroic figure this time around, a kind gentleman but also a man of action who never hesitates to do what must be done. Cushing is one of the most eminently watchable actors I know of, and this is one of his very best roles.
Overall, 'Horror of Dracula' is most definitely a classic, and I liked it more seeing it a second time, but I don't think it's in the upper echelon of Hammer films.

(Due to different entries in this series being owned by different companies, this collection skips the next two in the Dracula/Van Helsing series, those being 'The Brides of Dracula' and 'Dracula: Prince of Darkness,' and we move onto . . .)

DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE: 4/5 Stars - Actually, I find this and 'Brides' to be the most overall satisfying entries in the series (though they all have their definite flaws). It's very true that Christopher Lee has very little to do in this movie, and is saddled with some pretty poor lines, but what made this movie for me was the rest of the cast of characters. I actually liked the romantic leads, and thought the Monsignor was a very good character. But my favorites were the priest who is enslaved by Dracula and the tavern girl who is among the first of the Count's victims; with the former, you really get to feel his conflict and inner turmoil the whole time, and the latter is a very likable and sad character . . . her pleading with the Count ("What do you want her for, you've got ME!") is very poignant. Too bad the script didn't use the character to her full potential. Moving on, I really like the sets in this film, and it once again has that classic Hammer atmosphere to it that makes for a very entertaining and enjoyable time.

TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA: 3 or 3.5/5 Stars - This one's weird for me, in the sense that while I definitely can't say the film is all that great, I certainly can't say that I didn't enjoy it. Christopher Lee is given even less to do this time around (and his lines are even worse), but once again I liked the other characters enough that it made up for it. The romantic leads seemed to be clones from those of the last movie and are thus less interesting, but they were likable enough. I loved the angle of the small group of upper-class aristocrats who spend their time secretly indulging in the worst human excess and behavior they can . . . this aspect of the story almost had a Marquis de Sade quality to it. And Ralph Bates is great as the man who leads them into far darker territory than even they had hoped for. Oh, and on another note (no pun intented), I found James Bernard's musical score quite lovely.

(Once again, due to rights issues, we skip the next entry in the series, 'Scars of Dracula,' and continue on to . . .)

DRACULA A.D. 1972: 4/5 Stars - What can I say, this is one of those movies that is a helluva lot more entertaining than it has a right to be. It certainly benefits from the presence of Peter Cushing, who makes a wonderful return to the series as Van Helsing (a descendent of his original character). Sure, the premise of bringing Count Dracula into the 1970s is inherently more than a little stupid, but for all intents and purposes I think it worked well enough (even if, yet again, he isn't given anything of real interest to do). Unfortunately, the angle of the group of troublemakers being duped by a mysterious stranger into bringing good old Drac back from the dead in a black mass ceremony seems a lot less fresh due to the similarity of the proceedings to those in 'Taste the Blood...' (just replace elderly aristocrats with stereotypical rebellious teenagers). But I liked the character of Van Helsing's granddaughter and the actress who played her. But once again, it's Peter Cushing who makes the movie for me. Well, that and Caroline Munro . . . I can never say no to a chance to see her on-screen!

(The final film in the series, 'The Satanic Rites of Dracula,' is not included due to it not being owned by Warner Bros.)

IN CONCLUSION: The Hammer Dracula series is not a perfect collection of films, but it IS a great example of the sheer entertainment value that so many of their films possessed; even when they weren't technically all that great, Hammer films were almost always fun to watch. Though it goes without saying, this collection is a must-own for any fan of Hammer Films. It's ridiculously cheap (four movies for the price of one), and though the discs are double-sided with a movie on each side, the quality of the films is great and just as good as on their individual releases.

Usually I have to pass on these inexpensive Warner Brothers four-movie collections that have popped up lately, as I either have no interest in the movies offered (the "Police Academy" compilation, for instance), or I already own one or more of the movies in the set. Finally, though, with this cool "Dracula" offering, there were four movies that I didn't own and was actually interested in seeing.

All four of these old Hammer Studios (Hammer was affiliated with Warner Brothers) "Dracula" films are engaging fun, often shocking and scary, too. Of course, I was immediately struck by the fact that Christopher Lee's Dracula really doesn't have much to do in any of them. Basically, his rarely-speaking character is there to set the story in motion, appear once or twice throughout, and then show up at the end to bring it to a close. The four movies devote much more of their attention to the activities of the characters surrounding Dracula, which is actually sort of interesting.

Though I liked these movies a lot overall, I have to point out one ludicrous (but nonetheless entertaining) sequence in "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave!", the second film in this set. In this movie, Dracula is actually revived by a priest stumbling around in the forest who trips, bumps his head on a rock, and falls unconscious. Blood from his head wound then trickles onto the surface of the frozen creek under him, drips down through a crack in the ice, and into the lips of a frozen Dracula, who just happens to be directly under where the priest tripped! The trickle of blood revives Dracula for that particular movie. Amazing! Oh, I should mention that the priest was actually in the forest BECAUSE of Dracula (he was on a mission to sanctify Dracula's castle, to make it unusable for the vampire in the event he ever tried to return to it), so it was really unlucky that the priest decided to trip- after traveling hours through the forest- RIGHT ABOVE THE SPOT where Dracula's corpse was frozen in the ice. I thought that was really funny.

Anyway, aside from that head-scratching moment, the stories here are mostly solid, the prints are sharp and clean, and there are even a few modest extras (mostly in the form of the films' trailers). If you enjoy horror movies of years past, you can't go wrong with this entertaining set, especially considering the price.

It's like being a kid again during a Saturday matinee at the local movie theatre!

This is a great buy! Four movies starring Christopher Lee as the Count! Maybe the best portrayal of Dracula on films.

I bought this before Halloween and didn't expect high quality.. but was pleasantly surprised!

You can't go wrong if you enjoy Hammer films from the 50's and 60's, with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee!

One of the great joys of growing up with the Hammer horror films was the "continuity" from film to film. Unfortunately, I am too young to have seen these films while they were being released, and too old to not have seen them before the multi-movie capabilities of DVD sets. I saw all the Hammer films as they aired on tv, usually in the middle of the night, sometimes on Saturday afternoons, but out of order, and some films more than others.

Not that I brood over this, but it has irritated me all these years that I saw Dracula Has Risen From the Grave multiple times before I saw Dracula: Prince of Darkness. It's not so bad with the other sequels, but the end to Dracula: Prince of Darkness is perfect to the way he got resurrected in Dracula Has Risen From the Grave. With this four film set of DVD's, again I am deprived of seeing the second and third Count Dracula stories back to back (Brides of Dracula was the second film in the Hammer series, but did not have Dracula as a character). Yes, I am spiteful enough to drop the ratings by one star because of this. That said, Dracula A.D, 1972 is a satisfactory selection for the fourth film in this set, since it 1) has the Dracula/Van Helsing battle in a modern setting, and 2) teams up Christopher Lee with Peter Cushing.

Like I wrote in the BBC adaptation of Dracula, my taste has clearly changed since I was a kid, so watching this collection wasn't as enjoyable as watching them on broadcast televison whenever they aired.

For me, though, Horror of Dracula has passed the test of time. The plot is really nowhere near the novel, but the film was more action packed than the novel and the 1931 Universal version, and the relationship between Lee's Dracula and Cushing's Van Helsing is so powerful, that you would think that all the Dracula films had these two battling - but it would be 14 years before they appeared in another Dracula movie together.

One of the reasons why Dracula A.D. is a smart addition to this set is that it was the first teaming of Lee and Cushing since the first film. It takes place a hundred years after the last Van Helsing/Dracula battle, Dracula had been carrying this grudge against the Van Helsings all these years, just waiting to be resurrected and lo and behold, the grandson and grandfather look exactly alike. This movie works only because the first movie establishes such a strong chemistry between the two, and it's nice to have both available in the same set. You can watch the first and last movie and get a sort of "continuity." As for this movie as stand alone - it's really dated and although the plot had potential, the execution of the idea was lacking.

As for the other two films that make up this set, I had always thought Dracula Has Risen From the Grave was the weakest of the 19th century stories (maybe because I'd seen it so many times), but rather enjoyed it this time around. In a way, it's a rather intellectual film. The protagonist is an athiest and as much as a "B" horror film can, it examines the issue of strengths of faith and love when having to destroy vampires.

Taste the Blood of Dracula has a circle of three friends being targeted by Dracula because they had killed his servant. He uses the children of the men to kill their fathers. I can't remember if I liked it as a kid, but I didn't like it as an adult. Dracula has no loyalties except to himself, and to get his intended victims' children to do the dirty work for him? Neither approach worked for me.

Bottom line, it's a nice set of four films. For five stars, I'd have had it include Dracula: Prince of Darkness, and if the replacement had been other than Dracula A.D. 1972, I would have dropped this set down to three stars. Admittedly, I didn't get as much enjoyment as I thought I would from these four films, but it was nostalgic to see see vampire horror without current special effects and you really can't do much (if any) better than a battle between characters played by Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing - and you get two of them here.

You can't beat the price here on Amazon for this 4-movie set of Dracula movies, i.e. Horror of Dracula, Dracula Has Risen From the Grave, Taste the Blood of Dracula, and Dracula A.D. 1972. The one thing I did wonder is why they didn't include the second Dracula instalment, i.e. Dracula Prince of Darkness [which by the way is being sold by third parties here on Amazon for exorbitant amounts].

Horror of Dracula
"Horror of Dracula" may not be a faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic Gothic vampire tale, in fact far from it, but it is a fine take of Stoker's novel.In this version, Jonathan Harker goes to Dracula's castle at the beginning under the guise of a librarian, but he actually knows what Dracula is and his purpose is to destroy him. Unfortunately, he is killed by Dracula and the vampire goes to London to prey upon Harker's fiancee, Lucy Holmwood [yes, they changed the names too], and later on Mina Holmwood, Lucy's sister-in-law. It is left to Van Helsing [Peter Cushing] and Arthur Holmwood [Lucy's brother and Mina's husband] to destroy the monster.

Christopher Lee, in his first portrayal of the evil Count Dracula, may not have much screen time, but he makes the most of the limited time he does have. His Count is sensual and evil at the same time - exerting a hypnotic effect upon his female victims that have them eagerly disrobing for the count's pleasure [and fangs:)].

Peter Cushing does an amazing job as Dr Van Helsing, vampire hunter and his commanding presence and determination to hunt down and destroy the monster that is Dracula is so credibly done that I was cheering him on all through the movie.

The female victims are suitably beautiful and helpless in the face of Dracula's charm and manipulations, and though this movie doesn't exactly scream big budget, I thought the production values were pretty decent - the vivid colors, the sets and scenery all enhanced the movie experience.There is a genuine atmosphere of menace that is effectively conveyed via the creepy score and sets.

Dracula Has Risen From the Grave
Though there are mixed reactions to "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave", I personally found it to be very interesting and thought-provoking. The story here begins with the little village in which Castle Dracula is located. It's been a year since the count's reign of terror ended, and yet mysterious events still plague the villagers. When the Monsignor [Rupert Davies] returns for a routine visit, he finds the villagers cowering in fear, including the Parish Priest himself [Ewan Hooper]. When the Monsignor undertakes to exorcise the Castle once and for all, events transpire differently - an unfortunate cut on the Priest's head proves to be the nourishment that brings the Count back to life, though the Monsignor remains oblivious of this fact, returning to his own village. The Count and his now faithful servant, the priest follow hot on the Monsignor's heels, bent on revenge - the target being the Monsignor's lovely niece, Maria [Veronica Carlson]. It's left to the Monsignor and Maria's atheist boyfriend, Paul [Barry Andrews] to save Maria before it's too late.

The production values in this movie were actually quite good - the sets, the score, and cinematography all enhanced the storytelling and made this movie very dark and menacing [the cellar under the inn where the Count is forced to reside looks very authentic].

The acting was good - Christopher Lee returns as the Count and this time, he is really mad and bent on revenge, with more screen time and dialogue to convey his anger. His lust for his prey is convincingly portrayed as usual and the female victims once again fall hopelessly under his spell, baring their necks in anticipation of the Count's 'embrace'. Rupert Davies is also strong in his portrayal of the Monsignor and special mention needs to be made of Ewan Hooper's fallen priest. His guilt and conflict comes across as genuine, and this was one aspect of the movie that made it really good for me - the corruption of good by Dracula, and the test of faith in both the Priest and also the atheist Paul.

Taste the Blood of Dracula
This is the fourth instalment in Hammer productions' Dracula series. The storyline is quite unique in that it centers on a group of middle-aged businessmen who inadvertently cause the Count to be resurrected via an occult ritual conducted by a young nobleman, Courtley. They kill Courtley during the ritual, and leave in a hurry, not realising that by committing murder, they have not only caused Dracula to rise again, but awakened his anger. Dracula is bent on revenge for his acolyte's death and proceeds to kill the trio off by manipulating their children.

The acting in this movie was actually pretty good. Christopher Lee reprises his role as the evil Count and actually has quite a few lines of dialogue here, all delivered in his usual deadpan style. His blood- red eyes and demented expressions are all portrayed with chilling effect. The three doomed men are also played really well - Geoffrey Keen as William Hargood, Peter Sallis as Samuel Paxton, and John Carson as Jonathan Secker are all believable in their roles as lecherous middle-aged men whose lust eventually lead to their downfall. The two girls who play Dracula's victims, Linda Hayden as Alice Hargood and Isla Blair as Lucy Paxton are suitably beautiful and do their roles justice.

I thought the production values were above average - the score was effectively creepy, and the sets were well-done, especially the derelict chapel that is the scene of Dracula's resurrection and also the final battle.

Dracula A.D. 1972
Dracula A.D. 1972 is a campy instalment in the Dracula series made by Hammer Films. The gist of the movie is that Dracula gets resurrected in 1972 by a young acolyte, Johnny Alucard and seeks to destroy the remaining Van Helsings, i.e. Dr Van Helsing [Peter Cushing] and his beautiful, hippie granddaughter Jessica [Stephanie Beacham].

Though Christopher Lee reprises his role as the malevolent count, his screen time is quite limited and I felt too much screen time was wasted on portraying the debauchery and free-swinging lifestyle of 70s Hippie culture - drugs, sex and rock n roll. But, when he does appear, Lee is magnetic as the count and doesn't disappoint in his performance.

But the best performance in this movie is Peter Cushing's 20th century Van Helsing - he is assured, intelligent and above-all single-minded in his determination to save his granddaughter Jessica from the vampire's clutches. Stephanie Beacham is luscious to look at and feisty in her portrayal as the strong-willed Jessica.

The rest of the actors were ho-hum - a bit overdone in some instances [the guy who played Johnny Alucard for example].

All in all, this isn't a great Dracula movie, but it isn't the worst either.

Final Verdict - this is a set worth owning for fans of Dracula movie and the vampire genre/classic horror.