Quote:
Originally Posted by the machine  ... it's fascinating how dracula (horror of dracula) is so utterly different in tone from the other christopher lee dracula films in the series. where the sequels are lurid and somewhat trashy with not a lot of speaking by lee, in the original lee's dracula has lots of dialogue and there's considerably more depth to the character ...
... watching dracula on tv was one of the more frightening experiences of my youth, right up there with frankenstein the true story and trilogy of terror ... |
Once the story of the original novel has been told by Hammer, where do they go from there? That may explain the quality shift of the Hammer follow-ups. You've made an interesting point there though, I agree with you on this. I think I read somewhere that Christopher Lee refused to use a lot of the dialogue from some of the Dracula films since the original 1958 version. They strayed too far away from the original source, which was Bram Stokers book. I liked most of the Hammer Dracula's though, apart from one or two of them. I find The scars of Dracula a tad boring these day's, along with one more, which I think was 'Risen". AD 1972 is good fun, and so is the "Satanic rites"....