|  DJ:
DUSTIN! Thank the HEAVENS you're back... That fuckin' Fingers...
He's got an attitude problem, dude. You should dock his pay.
Dustin: None of us get paid for this.
DJ: Huh? Oh, right. (Keep up appearances,
eh?) Yeah. Me and Dustin aren't living fat off the footnote,
that's right. Back to work, writers!!!
Dustin: As far as you know, that's right!
DJ: Regardless, trying to review Harold
& Maude with that formerly mustachioed "family
man" was near impossible. I'm glad to be back with you,
my loveable redheaded master. Tell the good people what we're
discussing this month...
Dustin: Yo ho ho... this month I have brought
before our hallowed committee (of two), a film that has managed
to be both classified as "horror" and "cult."
I suppose we could call it "cult horror" and save
time, but whatever you call it, it is the 1958 Hammer Films
production The Horror of Dracula! And this is one
great treatment of the Dracula story -- it brings together
an all-star cast: Saruman from The Lord of the Rings,
Grand Moff Tarkin from Star Wars, and a dashing young
Alfred from the Tim Burton era Batman films. There
are also other people in this movie, but they are neither
famous, nor are they ninjas.
DJ: Actually, the aforementioned Michael
"Alfred" Gough was rumored to be a ninja sometime
in the seventies when he befriended James Caan, but this isn't
the place for Hollywood gossip. Anyway, I'm assuming you'd
known of this flick for sometime. Did it live up to your cult/camp
expectations?
Dustin: Actually, I'd only known this piece
by reputation--I am rather poorly versed in the realm of classic
horror pictures. Prior to this, the closest I'd come to seeing
a Dracula film in a long time was Dracula: Dead and Loving
It. It's a pattern that's present in pretty much all
of my viewing of monster movies. I seem to only see the "funny"
versions: Young Frankenstein is another great example,
along with the best of the wolfman-type movies, Teenwolf,
and On Golden Pond, which I think is the funny version
of The Toxic Avenger. So I took this as an opportunity
to finally watch this much-heralded Dracula flick. Did it
live up to the hype? Absolutely. I really dug it.
DJ: Not to be a "know it all,"
but On Golden Pond was the spoof of Swamp Thing.
Anyway, I knew of these Hammer Horror films mainly, I think,
because Tim Burton talks 'em up in interviews (I feel Sleepy
Hollow is his own little Hammer film, actually...), so
I was kind of excited when you suggested this. It wasn't scary
by today's standards (which aren't scary by 1970s standards,
which is neither here nor there), and was a little slow due
to my adult ADD and modern sensibilities, but the acting,
especially by Cushing as Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman who?) and
Lee as the Count is really great for this type of stuff. I
was confused by the beginning, though, thinking they'd replaced
Van Helsing with Jonathan Harker or some shit. That Harker/Van
Helsing connection confused me, having Harker be a fellow
Vampire hunter, but it was a cool way to keep the viewer on
his/her toes--what with his seemingly like the lead hero until
a pretty early demise.
Dustin: Right, that's the one big deviation
that I noted from the "classic" story, in that the
Harker character isn't a wuss in this one. Also, this seems
to take place entirely in Germany, which is geographic change,
is slight. It was an interesting twist leading off the pic
with Harker arriving at Caste Dracula to try and kill him,
and ultimately shows the importance of not neglecting "The
Buddy System." Dumbass.
DJ: Seriously. And I can't believe he's there,
with Dracula and his ho snoozing in separate coffins... and
the schmuck decides to stake the lady first!!! ALWAYS STAKE
DRACULA FIRST!!!!
Dustin: I KNOW!
DJ: I don't care who you are: Blade, Buffy,
Van Halen--always take care of Dracula immediately when you
have the chance!
Dustin: I might have actually screamed at
the television when he did that.
DJ: It was ABSURD! Dracula ain't no sloppy
seconds!... But I digress. Harker made a dumbass move, and
he paid for it in kind, getting all kinds of blood sucked.
He deserved it. Moron.
 Dustin:
Right. But our guy Van Helsing, deftly played by Hammer regular
Peter Cushing, would soon arrive to try and sort things out.
Of course, he ends up having to kill the newly-vamped Harker
as he sleeps, but hey... every hero needs a good source of
anguish. This is why Superman wears those super-tight briefs.
It just provides the driving force for the story.
DJ: So that's why with the read speedos...
hero angst!
Dustin: And from there, the plot becomes
a little familiar--Van Helsing goes on to visit Harker's girlfriend
and her family, to inform them that they boy Jonathan has
become a Harker-flavored Slurpee at the Vampire 7-11 (which
probably would be called 11-7, since they're vampires), and
he deduces that Dracula has beaten him there, and is now macking
on the tasty Mina Harker. The story plays out in familiar
fashion then, ultimately leading to a confrontation at the
end--surprise surprise--at Castle Dracula between the intimidating
figure of Christopher Lee's Dracula and Van Helsing.
DJ: You're right about Lee being as intimidating
as all hell, but it's amazing how he seems to own this film
with, what? Ten lines and twelve minutes of screen time?
 Dustin:
It's just Lee... and he didn't even totally have the deep
"I am Christopher Lee delivering dialogue" voice
yet.
DJ: When I heard about this, I expected a
two hour Cushing/Lee stodgy Brit badass fest, and instead
I get Cushing doing a Vampire hunting Holmes and Gough as
a dandy Watson... Still, they kick all kinds of ass in that
stiff upper lip Limey way. And Lee's plenty suave and then
all carnivorous and scary... It's just funny how little he's
actually in the flick. Still more than he got in "Return
of the King," but that's neither here nor there.
Dustin: The majority of my notes on this
were actually about the production itself, probably the weakest
link. Granted, it was 1958 when this was made, but the special
effects came across as dated. They were numerous, especially
the blood, but oh so fake. I think the only really nice effect
was tinting Lee's eyes red whenever he attacked, as if he
had some kind of blood lust. It was a very subtle touch, but
very nice. It speaks that the filmmakers might have been hampered
by a lack of budget, or access to the best movie-making materials
of the day, but they cared a lot about what they were making.
DJ: Yeah, it was a cheap as hell looking
flick. I have to say that I dug that bright, bright red blood,
though. So, overall, who would you recommend this to?
Dustin: Anyone. Although you might still
have to go with the 1931 Bela Lugosi version as the "definitive"
Dracula picture, I would actually say this was more enjoyable.
DJ: I think that, if I'd been alive to see
this in 1958, it would've scared the shit out of me. By my
cynical eyes today, I was honestly bored by long stretches,
and then mildly giggly at others. So, while I laughed at it
some, I still really dug it for what it is. Funny thing I
want to mention: I'm a hillbilly from southern Ohio, and when
I asked the video store clerk if they had this, I think she
thought I said "The Whore of Dracula." That was
kind of embarrassing. Not the movie's fault for using a word
in the title I apparently cannot pronounce, though.
Dustin: Oh, she was confused--I think she
was thinking of The Whore of Blackula, which was
the sequel to the that infamous blaxploitation version of
Dracula. You know, maybe we should've reviewed Blackula
instead.
DJ: Ah... how 'bout next month?
|
