Dracula Has Risen From the Grave

Dracula Has Risen From the Grave (1968)

Dir. Freddie Francis

Written by Anthony Hinds, using the name "John Elder"

Starring Chirstopher Lee, Rupert Davies, Veronica Carlson, Barbara Ewing

 

The bad news first: DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE --Hammer's third sequel to their studio-defining 1958 DRACULA (aka HORROR OF DRACULA), second with Christopher Lee, and second which Lee openly did not want to be a part of-- is broadly more interested in the character drama than the horror. That is a highly questionable decision for a movie called DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE to make, and probably reason enough for most folks to just ignore it entirely and focus on genre movies that would actually like to, you know, do genre movie stuff.

 

The good news, though, is that for those who stick around, that character drama is surprisingly tolerable. Which is not to say that it’s an overwhelming good story; or even much of a story at all: this time Dracula gets revived after a uptight Monsignor (Rupert Davies, WITCHFINDER GENERAL, CURSE OF THE CRIMSON ALTER, winner or the inaugural Pipe Smoker Of The Year Award [yes, really]) decides that even though Dracula is already dead (having drowned like a chump at the end of DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS) he should not leave well enough alone and instead should march up to Dracula's Castle and exorcise it. In the process, a dorky local priest (Ewan Hooper, KINKY BOOTS) manages to fall down and hit his head and the blood flows into a nearby body of water (implied in the last movie to be far from Dracula's Castle, but no good ever came of trying to parse the continuity between these movies) which happens to be the very short-term resting place of our titular character, so of course that brings Drac right back, to get up to his old tricks. And if those old tricks (i.e., visiting the bedrooms of virginal maidens to gradually vampirize them) happen to coincide with getting revenge on the Monsignor who exorcised his castle (even if he did revive the Count in the process) because the victim is the old codger's niece, well, so much the better. 

The odd thing is, although that is the plot you'd have to summarize if you were, say, trying to write a review of DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM HIS GRAVE, it doesn't really accurately describe the movie. All that business with Dracula and the Monsignor and the nocturnal visits and all that makes up a relatively small portion of the runtime. Mostly, the movie chronicles the lives of various denizens of a local inn, one of whom (a fellow named Paul, played by Barry Andrews, BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW) happens to be the boyfriend of said virginal Monsignor's niece. They all notice some strange goings-on, and eventually begin to fall prey to Dracula's depredations, but a lot of the time is simply spent hanging out at the workplace, or dealing with the tension caused by the uptight Monsignor's extreme displeasure at the prospect of having his niece date anyone, least of all a --gasp-- hunky atheist like our handsome generic white boy™ Paul. 

As I mentioned above, you'd have every right to doubt that this focus would prove as fruitful as doing something crazy like centering your movie with DRACULA in the title around, you know, Dracula. But it turns out to be a surprisingly charming time. In fact, basically every major role is more interesting and better played than you’d have any right to expect. The script, by Anthony Hinds (alias: John Elder, THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF, THE REPTILE, and the next two DRACULA films, replacing previous series scribe Jimmy Sangster, whose script had so displeased Lee last time around) contributes to this by making each character and their corresponding web of relationships more complex and multi-dimensional than they need to be, and the actors across the board respond by giving spirited, lively performances. OK, so the main victim girl (Veronica Carlson, far better in FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED) is pretty boring, another naive, virginal damsel, so innocent she sleeps with a doll. But that’s to be expected; when was the last time Hammer had a young male lead who seems as vivacious as Andrews makes Paul, or who looked kind of like Roger Daltrey? Rarely if ever. And he's surrounded by a whole crew of able character actors who do their part to make these stock types feel distinct. I'm particularly taken with Zena (Barbara Ewing, TORTURE GARDEN, MUTE, EYE OF THE NEEDLE), Paul's fellow bar-worker, a bawdy, worldly lady with her own unrequited affection for the young man, who brings a world-weary melancholy to her poor doomed role. But honestly everyone is doing good work; even the stodgy old Monsignor --who has a complex, not-quite-romantic relationship with his widowed sister-in-law-- proves to be a little more interesting and worth spending time with than you'd suppose.      

In fact, the only person who doesn’t seem to be trying very hard is Christopher Lee, who is not really bothering to hide how much he doesn’t care by this point. He speaks again, after his controversial mute turn in the previous film... but it’s probably only four or five unimportant lines, and he’d be better off staying quiet. They also have this dumb effect where they make his eyes all bloodshot, which just makes him look high and distracts from Lee’s naturally cold, imperious gaze. It's hard to say if the script gives him short shrift, or if Lee was being such a baby about returning to the role that they just tried to write a movie around him doing as little as possible, but the end result is that he is almost comically inactive here. He simply doesn’t do that much, and the stuff he does is just recycled from the last couple films (basically, just menacingly visit an innocent virgin in her bedroom a few times). But at least director Freddie Francis (TALES FROM THE CRYPT, TROG) knows how to shoot him so he looks cool and imposing; even a totally coasting Lee can hardly look otherwise, but having the movie shoot him like a total boss certainly helps make the case that Dracula is in some way important to this Dracula movie. And he does get a real hum-dinger of a death, almost certainly the best he's ever going to get, and a real significant upgrade from the lame watery demise he met last time. And again, Francis (who had won an Oscar for best Cinematography back in 1960 for SONS AND LOVERS, and would win another for GLORY in 1989, though he's working as director in this case with Arthur Grant [QUATERMASS AND THE PIT, FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED] behind the camera) gives it the epic framing it deserves.In fact, it’s one of the nicest-looking Hammer pictures, full of cool sets and some of the most intense abstract lighting I’ve ever seen in a British movie, coming within shooting distance of what Bava was up to in Italy around the time he was making KILL BABY KILL and THE WHIP AND THE BODY. Francis and Grant also use some kind of odd prismatic lens which creates an iris effect, with the edges of the screen glowing red and orange. It’s a cool effect which might benefit from a little more restraint than is shown here, but when it works it’s pretty baller. 

The ultimate result is a movie which is more amiable than terrifying, and more handsome than consequential, but that's still enough to qualify as a pleasant surprise, given that this is the third sequel to a movie which arguably didn't need any sequels. It does not make one particularly confident that this series should continue for another five more entries, but for those who appreciate that special Hammer vibe, it's a tolerable, if very inessential, way to spend 90 minutes. I mean, Michael Ripper plays a drunken innkeeper, for heaven's sake. And who could resist that poster?

HAMMER’S DRACULA SERIES:

1: THE HORROR OF DRACULA (1958)

2: THE BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960)

3: DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966)

4: DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968)

5: TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA (1970)

6: SCARS OF DRACULA (1970)

7: DRACULA A.D. 1972 (1972)

8: THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA (1973)

9: THE LEGEND OF THE 7 GOLDEN VAMPIRES (1974)

(see also: Hammer’s FRANKENSTEIN series)

Torture Garden

Torture Garden (1967)

Dir. Freddie Francis

Written by Robert Bloch

Starring Burgess Meredith, Jack Palance, Beverly Adams, Michael Bryant, Barbara Ewing, Peter Cushing

TORTURE GARDEN is not the first anthology horror film I’ve seen. It’s not the first Amicus Productions anthology horror film I’ve seen. It’s not the first Amicus Productions anthology horror film directed by Freddie Francis that I’ve seen. It’s not even the first Amicus Productions anthology horror film directed by Freddie Francis from the late 1960s and starring Peter Cushing that I’ve seen.

But you know what? It’s a damn fine one. I think it’s not only one of the studio’s best, but one of the best of the era’s many portmanteau films, period. And it’s not hurting for competition.

I mean, Amicus --scrappy competitor to the comparably more venerable British horror powerhouse Hammer Studios--  made a whole bunch of anthology horror films, it was kind of their thing. TORTURE GARDEN was an early one, but not the first (that would be 1965’s DR. TERROR’S HOUSE OF HORRORS); it was followed by THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD (1970), ASYLUM (1972), TALES FROM THE CRYPT (1972), VAULT OF HORROR (1973), and FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE (1974), and THE UNCANNY (1977). And that’s just Amicus’s output; if you want to take a broader look at the anthology landscape from this period, you’ve also got Mario Bava’s BLACK SABBATH (1963) from Italy, DEAD OF NIGHT (the 1977 one, not the 1945 classic), THE DEVIL’S MESSENGER (1961), JOURNEY INTO DARKNESS (1968), Masakai Kobiyashis’s KWAIDEN (1968) from Japan, THE MONSTER CLUB (1981), NIGHT GALLERY (1969), PARAPSYCHO - SPECTRUM OF FEAR (1975) from Austria, SPIRITS OF THE DEAD (1968), TALES OF TERROR (1962), TALES THAT WITNESS MADNESS (1973), TRILOGY OF TERROR (1975), TWICE TOLD TALES (1963). And that’s an almost-certainly incomplete list of horror anthology films only from the two decades between 1960 and 1980. So yeah, there’s a lot of these.

And yet, TORTURE GARDEN manages to stand out.

Part of that is director Freddie Francis; a veteran cinematographer by the time he became a director (a career to which he would later return --to great acclaim and a couple Academy Awards-- after his days as a horror schlockmeister were over), he had a pretty uneven career, but, especially in his early days, still seemed to have enough ambition to make his films look nice. No Brit ever dared go as purely psychedelic with their lighting as the Italians, but here and there he and cinematographer Norman Warwick (THE ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES) manage to sneak some surreal green or feverish red into the lighting scheme, which nicely compliments the pushy, slightly heightened reality of the production design and the camerawork. It's not showy direction, but it has a careful attention to detail which subtly informs the tone and adds to its amiably creepy vibe.

Another part of TORTURE GARDEN's success is writer Robert Bloch; originally a short-story author in the Lovecraftian vein (he spent his early years corresponding with Lovecraft himself), Bloch had matured by the 1960s into a style distinctly his own, staking his claim to stories of prickly, abnormal psychology laced with a dark sense of irony (he wrote the novel which became Hitchcock’s PSYCHO in 1960). His stature as a titan of horror fiction is not in dispute, but his tenure as a film writer was as uneven as Francis’; I really dug the far-out weirdness of his work in ASYLUM, but his script for THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD isn’t nearly strong enough to survive the limp direction, and the movie is a total bore. And let's not forget, he wrote at least one draft of THE DEADLY BEES, a movie which -- I cannot stress enough -- technically qualifies as a war crime if shown to enemy combatants. The stories here, though, are some of his better, more fully realized work, and even if they probably worked better in their original form as short stories (especially the one with the murderous piano, which, as we will see, looks a little silly when visualized literally) they provide a solid foundation which Francis fleshes out admirably.

So the talent behind the camera is there, and that helps immensely. But the real ace in the hole this time around is the cast. Amicus supposedly originally wanted the old reliable duo of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing as their anchor stars, but American distributor Columbia Pictures demanded they ditch the Brits and bring in some big American stars, so instead of Lee we get Burgess Meredith (ROCKY) and Jack Palance (SHANE) (Cushing got to stay on in a small guest role).

Even by 1967, Palance was long, long past the point in his career where he was interested in working very hard (as weird as it is that this stoic Western star would go on to win an Academy Award after doing z-movies movies like WELCOME TO BLOOD CITY and CRAZE [also for Freddie Francis!], it’s even weirder that the film that did it was fucking CITY SLICKERS. 1991 was a weird time), and he’s mostly a non-presence in this one. But Burgess Meredith --at the time, right in the middle of his tenure as The Penguin in the Adam West Batman TV series-- was always one of those actors who you could always count on to put in a little effort, whether he was working for Otto Preminger or voicing a character named “Golobulus” in G.I. JOE: THE MOVIE*. Meredith was also from an old school tradition of Hollywood vaudeville hams, and correctly identifies his appearing in a movie called TORTURE GARDEN as sufficient reason to play to the cheap seats. And he is absolutely correct: as much as I love Lee and Cushing, their brand of redoubtable British class can be a bit stuffy at time, and having Meredith in their place brings a huge influx of anarchic, broad energy to the proceedings and gives this particular horror anthology a very distinct feel.

Meredith, of course, plays “Dr. Diablo,” a gaudily-attired carnival barker at a macabre “torture garden” attraction, which I guess must have been a real thing at the time because nobody seems to be confused as to why there’s a tent filled with grotesquely mutilated wax dummies at this carnival, and seem to feel they’ve got their money’s worth. Once the show’s over, though, he appeals to five straggles to pay an extra £5 -- £83 in 2016 money, or a whopping $110 bucks US!-- and step into his back room for a very special show. This turns out to be a statue of Atropos, one of the three Greek Moiroi, and the Goddess who determines the ultimate death of mortals. Not really a good use of 100+ bucks (good thing everyone came to the county fair flush with a hundred bucks cash in their pocket), except that when you stare into her shears, you get to experience a neat little self-contained vignette which ends in your death. So, arguably a better value than it would first appear.

Even so, Palance looks a little bit more excited than I'm comfortable with, and he's definitely not wearing pants. I think Michael Ripper's expression on the left speaks for all of us here.

The first taker is Max (Michael Bryant, who at the time had every reason to believe he would soon be a big star with the inevitable release of his showy role in Orson Welles’ THE DEEP**), who murders his wealthy uncle for his mysterious stash of gold, only to discover the source of the gold is decidedly, shall we say, unexpected: a demonic man-eating cat who demands he commit murder! And is not interested in taking 'nice kitty!' as an excuse. Obviously, a diabolical, man-eating cat is a difficult thing to film without looking silly, and this is certainly the sort of thing which would work better as a short story. But somehow Francis actually pulls it off here; rather than using a lot of lame cat puppets (or just hurling unwilling cats at actors, as Dario Argento did in INFERNO), he tells the story through implication and meaningful close-ups of a tragically uncredited cat actor who has charisma like you wouldn’t believe. Though the gore leaves a little to be desired, the segment proves a surprisingly effective opener.

This cat should have been a huge star

Next up, we get aspiring Hollywood actress (Beverly Adams, mostly a TV actor who struck it big when she married hairstyle tycoon Vidal Sassoon and later divorced him and launched her own line of pet care products***) who has her sights set on clawing her way to the top, no matter what the cost. And she’s well on her way (muscling past her naive roommate to a date with a producer, and dumping him for a big star [American B-movie stalwart Robert Hutton, TALES FROM THE CRYPT]) before she starts to get the sense that something is a little… off about Hollywood’s ultra-elite. Before long, she’s risking her career (and life!) to uncover the horrible truth. If that sounds a lot like SOCIETY, well, it is (though the truth doesn’t turn out to be quite as colorfully goopy), but Francis again does a fine job of cultivating an atmosphere of incipient menace, clearly perceptible but never quite visible, and Bloch’s nasty, misanthropic take on these Hollywood clinger-ons --who aren’t even phonies, but wannabe phonies-- gives it the bite it needs to differentiate itself from countless “ain’t Hollywood a drag” tales of woe.

Following that, in the second-to-last slot where they inevitably stick the weakest segment, we find Kiwi actress and later crime novelist Barbara Ewing (DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE) as the girlfriend --and aspiring wife-- of a famous piano prodigy (John Standing, V FOR VENDETTA, BBC’s Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy, Game Of Thrones). She’s something of a controlling, demanding character, but not nearly as controlling or demanding as the other woman in the musician’s life -- his mother, who is currently residing as a ghost in a possessed piano which demands he constantly practice. The two women are immediately thrust into a competition for the musician’s time and affection, which Ewing seems to be winning, until the competition becomes a physical altercation and, well, it turns out a 98 pound blonde doesn’t have what it takes to go 10 rounds with a pissed-off, 'roided up aggressive grand piano (ROCKY hadn’t come out yet, so the piano doesn’t know it should play Eye of the Tiger while it dukes it out with its rival). Alas, this setup is just as funny to watch as it sounds on paper, which is a shame, because riiiiight up til the big piano vs woman throwdown, the segment does a perfectly respectable job as an escalating battle of wills. But there’s no getting around it, that ending, while appreciably eccentric, is just plain silly.

Fortunately, the film rallys for the last segment, which finds Jack Palance, as an obsessed Edgar Allan Poe fan, pumping rival Poe fanboy Peter Cushing (who recently returned to the big screen as a cartoon zombie made of money in ROGUE ONE) for the secret to his unparalleled collection of Poe memorabilia. The segment has one major hurdle to overcome: Palance is a bizarre choice for this character, who needs to come off as nerdy and manic and vulnerable in a way which Palance isn’t even close to achieving, though he makes a game effort. Really, this segment is obviously written for Cushing and Lee, but even without Lee to balance things out, it could not be more clear that the roles here should be reversed, with stone-face, intimidating Palance as the character holding all the power and tiny little Cushing as the obsessed, desperately curious interloper. The dialogue even makes it clear that Cushing has had at least three generations of his family living in America, so what the fuck is up with his posh accent? Argh!

Anyway, all that aside, Cushing is a delight to watch, as he inevitably is, and working with the old British pro seems to inspire Palace to at least make an effort. I don’t know how successful he is --or is even capable of being in this inexplicably miscast role-- but he’s definitely not phoning it in, and as one twist leads to an even crazier twist, the whole thing builds magnificently. While the first three segments are sturdy, well-constructed horror shorts, they’re pretty standard stuff, playing with timeless horror tropes which go back ages and ages. Here, though, the Robert Bloch who wrote the segment from ASYLUM where Herbert Lom obsessively builds tiny, anatomically accurate robot dolls with his own face on them makes himself known. This story is absolutely fucking nutty, and I love it, from the more staid opening --where Cushing and Palance trade nerdy, obsessive anecdotes about Poe-- to the screaming mad out-of-the-blue climax. My only complaint is that for a segment so fixated on Poe, his writings, and his legacy, it ought to have a touch more of Poe’s actual influence. Bloch and Poe shared a fixation on abnormal psychology as a gateway to a deep, subliminal horror, but Bloch’s instinct for dark irony and ambivalence to Poe’s baroque, brilliant use of language seems to put an insurmountable gap between the legacy of the two greats, and consequently the segment has the feeling of a affectionate reference more than a true soul-deep tribute. But no matter; it’s fun and crazy and I’m for it.

After this final segment, we return again to our five carnival attendees, and you recall that there’s actually a fifth person here -- Hammer Studios mascot Michael Ripper (more than half of all Hammer films 1956-1970)-- and you briefly wonder if he’s going to have his own segment, which would be highly unusual for the guy (who spent most of his career a bit player, and never a leading man). Alas, it’s not to be, but he does get one good showpiece moment right at the end, before Burgess Meredith swoops in to bid us adieu in his inimitable broad style. It’s an odd ending, and I must confess I’m not even exactly sure that I understand what’s going on here (obviously Meredith is the Devil, taunting wayward souls about their evil ways, but what exactly does he need these accomplices and all the hokey carnival fakery for?) but no matter, it’s a delightfully colorful end to a rock-solid anthology which makes exceptionally potent use of the talents of nearly everyone involved. Francis, Bloch, Cushing, Palance, Meredith, --and Amicus itself, for that matter-- all had the capacity for greatness in them, but rarely indeed did the stars align so perfectly to bring that capacity out. TORTURE GARDEN is, then, anything but.

(I mean the “torture” part, obviously. To watch, I mean. But it’s not really a garden of any kind either, so that interpretation would also be acceptable)

*Wait, was he cast in that because of his famous turn in the 1945 WWII veteran porn classic THE STORY OF G.I. JOE? If so, I hope they asked Robert Mitchum too. If that was an intentional referene, it definitely went over my head as a kid.

**The release of which did not turn out to be quite so inevitable as it surely appeared at the time

***The American Dream really can come true.

CHAINSAWNUKAH 2017 CHECKLIST!

The Discreet Charm of the Killing Spree

TAGLINE	Do You Dare See What Dr. Diabo Sees? Which is pretty much the same thing as Can You Smell What The Rock Is Cooking? When you get down to it.
TITLE ACCURACY	There is a “torture garden,” with a sign explicitly naming it as such. Still not sure that’s a real thing, but hey, the magic of cinema.
LITERARY ADAPTATION?	Robert Bloch adapts from four of his own short stories
SEQUEL?	Arguably part of Amicus’ loose series of anthologies, being preceded by Dr. TORTURE’S HOUSE OF HORRORS and followed by THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD
REMAKE?	None
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN	UK
HORROR SUB-GENRE	Anthology horror
SLUMMING A-LISTER?	I suppose neither Palance nor Meredith were exactly on the A-list at the time, but they were definitely Marquee names
BELOVED HORROR ICON?	Cushing, of course, and Michael Ripper. Also arguably director Freddie Francis, and certainly Robert Bloch.
NUDITY?	No, although there is a truly startling live bikini snow globe in one of the segments, which goes uncommented on.
SEXUAL ASSAULT?	None
WHEN ANIMALS ATTACK!	Killer Cat! But then again, there’s a killer grand piano too, so it’s not that special.
GHOST/ ZOMBIE / HAUNTED BUILDING?	Definitely a zombie, and a haunted piano, too.
POSSESSION?	Possessed piano
CREEPY DOLLS?	The wax dummies in the “torture garden”
EVIL CULT?	Arguably SPOILER some kind of crazy new age Hollywood bodysnatcher cult, though not exactly in a religious bent.
MADNESS?	Certainly!
TRANSMOGRIFICATION?	Yes!
VOYEURISM?	We get a killer grand piano POV, that’s unusual
MORAL OF THE STORY	If a shifty carny in a slapdash schlock murder-porn torture garden asks for a hundred bucks to go backstage and get a “real show,” definitely do it.

Brides of Dracula

Brides of Dracula (1960)

Dir. Terence Fisher

Written by Peter Bryan, Edward Percy, Jimmy Sangster

Starring Peter Cushing, Martita Hunt, Yvonne Monlaur, David Peel

“Transylvania, land of dark forests, dread mountains and black unfathomable lakes,” intones a solemn narrator over footage from the end of Hammer’s 1958’s DRACULA. “Count Dracula, monarch of all vampires is dead.”

With this, BRIDES OF DRACULA handily establishes both its backstory and its chief dilemma. There’s obviously too much money to be had for this property not to continue, but how do you make a sequel when your title character was definitively finished off last time around? Well, the narrator has an idea: “Count Dracula, monarch of all vampires is dead. But his disciples live on to spread the cult and corrupt the world…”

Ah-ha! Brides of Dracula, I bet! So while Christopher Lee sits this one out, we’re going to be introduced to a new rogues gallery of Dracula-adjacent vamps to do battle with a returning Dr. Van Helsing. OK, a respectable, if not especially imaginative, premise for a sequel which we obviously didn’t need but obviously did want. Brides of Dracula. Got it. So when Marianne --a mysterious young woman with an implacable continental accent (Yvonne Monlaur, VAMPIRE CIRCUS)-- rolls up on a small Transylvanian town with a menacing castle in the distance, we have a pretty good idea what to expect. The townies are a little leery of strangers, and her coachman (Michael Ripper, various coachmen, tavern keepers, peasants, drunks and cops in nearly every Hammer films 1956-1972) panics and gets the heck out of Dodge, leaving her stranded. Before long, she’s visiting the castle of the imperious and secretive Baroness Meinster (Martita Hunt, BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING), where she learns that the Baroness has an insane son (David Peel, some British TV movies and stuff) she keeps chained up in his room. Of course, our plucky French heroine isn’t going to be able to resist meddling a little. But what exactly is afoot here?

Admirably, BRIDES OF DRACULA isn’t in the business of giving up the game right away. It drops us right into this situation without any setup, and consequently we’re never quite confident that we know what’s going on. We’re on the lookout for any vampire brides, but we’re not quite sure who’s the villain here. Is it our interloping foreigner (who can usually be counted on to be up to no good in Hammer movies)? Is it the icy old countess? Is it the mad son? But no, it couldn’t be, we’re looking for brides here, and it’s 1960. And whoever it is, we’ve only isolated at most one bride, and that title is plural. So what’s up?

The answer is revealed at the end of the first act, but to its credit the movie performs a pretty nimble dance until then, patiently laying out its cards without tipping the whole hand. In a series not, frankly, especially well-known for brilliant narrative construction, this stands out as an unexpected and compelling little vignette. It has plenty of the old Hammer magic too -- opulent sets (this time featuring very cool dragon statuary!), uneasy Transylvanian villages, pretty young people of questionable acting prowess paired with seasoned old pros -- but it’s not often that Hammer made the effort to keep you on your toes about where the actual story was going. It’s a welcome change.

But it can only last so long. Once we’ve identified our villain, the film shifts into a more conventional mode. But fortunately exactly at that moment, we’re reintroduced to Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing (as far as I can tell, never given a first name here). Van Helsing is not one of the great actor’s more interesting characters, but just having Cushing on-screen proves suitable compensation for a more predictable tale of mild vampiric mischief. Still, it can get to be somewhat slow going for awhile as Van Helsing gradually reacquaints himself with a situation which is not only immediately familiar to the seasoned horror pro, but also the exact one we just spent the first act exploring. There’s a pretty tiresome comedy side plot about the stuffy proprietors of a female boarding house (Henry Oscar, who played Burke [of Burke and Hare fame] in THE GREED OF WILLIAM HART), and a much funnier (albeit unintentionally so) plot about Van Helsing trying to get the scoop from Marianne, who somehow seems to have forgotten the entire plot we just saw her wander through. And there’s a pretty comical bat puppet in there, which looks like something out of The Muppet Show. Turns out, some things you really probably do need CGI for, and malevolent bats are probably one of those things. It’s not all bad news, though, because in the middle we also have a vampiric resurrection sequence which is about as perfect an embodiment of this standard trope as you’re ever likely to find on film. Mind you, it’s the exact same scene that every Dracula movie has in it at some point (its prototype being the sequence from Dracula where Lucy Holmwood rises from her grave), but it’s just such a simple and note-perfect recitation that it has the feel of an old blues standard brought back to vitality by a true master with an innate understanding of the material and the confidence not to unnecessarily tart it up. It’s not the notes you play, it’s how you play them, and this is the very essence of these notes in their most unencumbered purity.

Still, the film does dawdle a bit in its middle. But fortunately things start to get rolling again as the third act dawns, and it all builds to quite a feisty and exciting climax (with Cushing doing his own stunts again, it looks like). Marianne is an almost breathtakingly stupid character with the memory of a particularly strung-out goldfish, but at least Monlaur plays her likeably enough that we’re willing to invest in her safety, particularly in the excellent scene where she’s menaced by a former girlfriend who has since become vampirized, in a well-staged bit of classic horror cinema just dripping with lesbian subtext. The titular brides, unfortunately, don’t get as  much action as you might hope, and end up playing second fiddle to another in a long and disastrous line of Hammer’s handsome bland pretty boys. If they really had to go with another male vampire, he ought to be either more sadistic or more disarming, and this one is neither. No way around it, Christopher Lee was obviously crucial to this formula working quite right. But the action is plenty exciting, and Cushing commits to the material with an intensity that sells it (including a pretty ballsy part where Van Helsing is bitten and has to Rambo himself back into the fight using a branding iron and holy water). And of all the many, many ways Hammer would eventually have to think of to dispose of an errant Dracula, this one probably offers the most exciting and cinematic, making the finale a real highlight of the whole series.

Even as early as 1960, Hammer was no stranger to sequels and franchises, having sequelized THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT in 1957 and THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN in 1958. It’s no secret that they eventually began a long and inevitable decline in quality, but I’m happy to report that this is definitely one of the good ones. It has some slow and dated moments, but it’s mostly aged quite well, and its commitment to an absolutely quintessential classic horror tone gives it a timeless quality which insulates it somewhat from the fickle winds of pop horror. An intriguing opening and an energetic climax seal the deal; if you’re the sort to find charm in the classic Hammer vibe, this is as solid a second-tier outing as you’re likely to find, and more than enough to give one false hope that continuing this series was a good idea.

HAMMER’S DRACULA SERIES:

1: THE HORROR OF DRACULA (1958)

2: THE BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960)

3: DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966)

4: DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968)

5: TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA (1970)

6: SCARS OF DRACULA (1970)

7: DRACULA A.D. 1972 (1972)

8: THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA (1973)

9: THE LEGEND OF THE 7 GOLDEN VAMPIRES (1974)

(see also: Hammer’s FRANKENSTEIN series)

CHAINSAWNUKAH 2016 CHECKLIST!

Good Kill Hunting

TAGLINE	In the privacy of a girls' school he sought his prey - turning innocent beauty into a thing of unspeakable horror! Which is true, and The Most Evil Dracula of All! Which is not.
TITLE ACCURACY	Arguably only one bride, and no Dracula.
LITERARY ADAPTATION?	As with Hammer’s FRANKENSTEIN adaptations, any relation to the original novel was all but erased by the second sequel. Though Stoker does describe vampiric brides, these are not them; only Van Helsing remains.
SEQUEL?	Sequel to HORROR OF DRACULA, followed by DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS
REMAKE?	No
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN	England
HORROR SUB-GENRE	Vampire
SLUMMING A-LISTER?	None.
BELOVED HORROR ICON?	Peter Cushing, Michael Ripper. Director Terence Fisher and screenwriter Jimmy Sangster.
NUDITY?	None. Not even much heaving cleavage, I notice.
SEXUAL ASSAULT?	The usual vampiric conversion by means of hypnotic seduction, but it’s pretty tame.
WHEN ANIMALS ATTACK!	Killer bat!
GHOST/ ZOMBIE / HAUNTED BUILDING?	Just the vampires
POSSESSION?	Some discussion of possessed people working for vampires, and there’s no doubt that their gaze can put the mind whammy on ya.
CREEPY DOLLS?	None
EVIL CULT?	There is much talk about the supposed “cult of the undead” but I see no actual evidence to suggest anything ritualistic.
MADNESS?	It’s first claimed that Baron Meinster is mad, but (spoiler) nope, turns out to be vampire.
TRANSMOGRIFICATION?	Man into bat, and (implied) into wolf, humans turned into vampire
VOYEURISM?	All this trouble starts because Marianne is spying on the downstairs balcony, and later the Baron seems to be spying on his victims since they’re all facing mirrors for some reason.
MORAL OF THE STORY	Here’s a thought: if you’re ever in someone’s house and find out they have one family member chained up for what they insist are very good reasons, try to investigate a little further before you go around unlocking everyone willy-nilly. Maybe even consider summoning the cops or somebody before you take action. Let’s go slow here.