Strong and Moving!

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

"Dracula" (aka "The Horror of Dracula") was one of the first Hammer films to really make an impact and to this day it remains the best of the series, keeping reasonably close to Bram Stoker's original novel. It was also the film that turned Christopher Lee into a star; it was obvious he was born to play Dracula, something he continued to do in several 'sequels' of varying quality. It also made a star of Peter Cushing, excellent as Van Helsing, though Cushing was already a very well-known supporting player in Britain. It was also beautifully designed and photographed by that fine and underrated cinematographer Jack Asher and unlike many subsequent 'monster' movies from the studio this one still has the ability to give you the shivers, thanks again to Lee's superb performance and special effects of an unusually high quality.

The first color-filmed Dracula (minus the tinting/toning of "Nosferatu" (1922) and a brief shot from the contemporary "The Return of Dracula" (1958)), we finally got to see the technicolor red blood in a cinematic treatment of Bram Stoker's novel—actually, this is the first instance of much if any blood at all in a Dracula movie. Another indication of the more-relaxed censorship by 1958, Hammer's "Dracula" is considerably more sexualized. Beyond introducing the familiar story to the splatter subgenre of its day, however, it's a relatively routine, if not bare-bones, adaptation story-wise, although, consequently, the plotting is punchier than most other Dracula movies.It wastes little time in jumping into the action, as Jonathan Harker is changed into a librarian imposter (yeah, I don't know why – an allusion to the film's source, perhaps) and undercover vampire hunter. The part of skeptic is played by the expanded role given to Arthur Holmwood, who's largely the Watson figure here to Van Helsing's Sherlock Holmes. Viewing this film, it's not surprising in the least that Peter Cushing, who plays Van Helsing, would play Holmes the very next year in "The Hound of the Baskervilles," nor is it surprising that he'd later play the Doctor, who also gets to show off his brilliance to stupid companions, in a couple "Doctor Who" movies. Meanwhile, Michael Gough, as Arthur, later turned to serve another batman in the 1989-1997 comic-book tetralogy. There was always an element of Holmes/Watson to "Dracula," demonstrating the connections between the horror and mystery genres, but finally having Englishmen play the parts surely stresses the similarities.Mina and Lucy, instead of switching roles this time, as they have in other adaptations, trade lovers, with Jonathan becoming Lucy's beloved and Mina marrying Arthur. Incestuously, Lucy also becomes the sister of Arthur, her former fiancé from the novel. As with most misogynist movie revisions of Stoker's tale, the two leading ladies are turned into lustful damsels-in-distress while the men play heroes. Additionally, Dr. Seward's role is reduced, and Renfield and the Texas suitor are eliminated (a Renfield type, however, appears in the third film of the series, "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" (1966)). The three female vampires from Castle Dracula are reduced to one, but this is compensated for by her displaying ample cleavage.Christopher Lee's Dracula is a relatively mute rendition; the titular role is reduced here to a supporting character to the crime- solving duo of Van Helsing and Arthur. But, with the aid of dramatic reveals involving thundering music, cutaways and close-up entrances, Lee does make an impact. His Dracula is basically just a monster, sporting fangs, blood-shot contacts and a blood-stained mouth, yet still mostly in the suave vampire tradition of Bela Lugosi. That's fine; it's appropriate for the action-packed pacing and splatter-type horror of this "Dracula." And having an ugly Count, as in the novel, would've distracted from the sexual acts of his book-connoisseur, country gent preying on the townsfolk's women. Oddly, there's also more crosses in this version, including a makeshift one (a gimmick reused ad nauseam in the sequels), which Van Helsing employs in the special-effects-laden climax, to trap the vampire between him and a "Nosferatu"-style sunbaked fate. A bit limp for a red-blooded Dracula.(Mirror Note: No mirror shots. The only mirror isn't used for a through-the-mirror shot; it's merely for Jonathan to examine his bite mark.)

Hammer's first movie from endless Dracula stories and what's a picture,apparently settled on German as show in the picture and characters's name too....perhaps the best from hammer studios really, bringing Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) as top billing, gave to us an impressive value of this character against the evil Dracula,this Gothic style taking the story in another level and how to destroy the Dracula,the plot is very exciting with all gorgeous and sexy women along the picture, Dracula (Christopher Lee)with another great performance giving to him a kind of trademark for all career as irreplaceable Dracula, a movie to see many times indeed,hoping for best restoration in near future maybe in Blu-ray.

This Story Sucks. Acting is Crap. Best part of the movie is the cinematography, sets and music. The story and acting sucks. Lee's acting is the worst. His opening dialogue about categorizing his books for his library is nonsense. Dracula with a British accent. A real disappointment. Lee looks good in the Dracula costume. But once he opens his mouth, not to bit, to speak, it's laughter time. Peter Cushing is good. But nothing can save this movie. Please stop being blinded by the love of Dracula, and the costumes. The sets, costumes, cinematography and music are very good. But the story is just painful. The dialogue and accents embarrassing.C rating for a B movie. 3 stars.