It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I have, @Thunderfinger, and I must concede they are among Marvel's finest work ever. In fact, I felt like they had that daring touch, not entirely unlike where the Hammer films were travelling in those days.
I had a bunch of them (Norwegian editions) and I traded them off. I regret that now. Blade was a spin-off from that run, or am I wrong?
Hammer have come to lean largely on two excellent actors, Peter Cushing, who tends to be Frankenstein, and Christopher Lee, who tends to be Dracula. Cushing conveys to perfection the fanatical devotion to ‘science’, plus the belated though energetic remorse, that suits a decent-minded re-animator of corpses; Lee, with great physical presence and skill in movement, makes the eccentric Count an accomplished man of the world when off duty, as well as a deadly wielder of the canines.
Cushing and Lee joined, or rather opposed, forces in the Dracula of 1957. This was a minor turning-point in cinema history and Hammer's first big commercial success; it pulled and still pulls in audiences in dozens of countries, reportedly outgrossing My Fair Lady in the Philippines, which says a lot for Filipino good taste. Dracula was an artistic success too, with expertly maintained tension and some fine sudden shocks, like the moment when one of the subordinate vampires gets the prescribed stake through the heart while inactive, and changes in a twinkling from beautiful young girl to horrible, very old woman. At the same (or a similar) juncture, blood spurted up over the executioner’s hand. The critics put on a show of moral concern about this detail, I seem to remember, and now would be my chance to chew over the rights and wrongs of horror, whether it is good or bad or indifferent for you, etc., if boredom at the prospect did not utterly deter me. Let it be established, if it ever can, whether violence on the screen in general does harm, before we legislate about a genre so very far removed from the experience and environment of the audience.
To return, thankfully, to Dracula: now and again a kind of perverse poetry was attained, as when another young lady, during the period of her conversion, so to speak, by Dracula, awaits his arrival via the balcony, lying on her bed in no state of torpor, rather with erotic eagerness. And the end, or the virtual end, with Dracula himself reduced to fluff and dust and finally nothing by the early rays of the sun, only his ring left lying on the pavement of the vast hall, achieved a curious desolate dignity. If only we could have had one or two of those splendid strokes from the novel!—the incident aboard the ship that unknowingly brings Dracula to England in a box of his native earth, even more the sight of him descending the outer wall of his castle head downwards. Some danger of a laugh here but a marvellous thing to bring off.
Another time, perhaps. There always is another time with that robust old Transylvanian blood-sucker. One might have thought him pretty thoroughly worsted at the end of Dracula, Prince of Darkness (196l), consigned until further notice to the bottom of an icebound moat. But Hammer are hard at work even now on his resuscitation. Despite the irresistibly funny dogmatic assertiveness of its title, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave promises to open sinisterly and even originally enough, with somebody falling through the ice on that moat and taking the trouble to cut his head open in the process, so that after a due interval a revitalizing snack reaches Dracula through the water.
I won't read anything where Dracula has a blood catcher.
I love that film. Many Bond alumni featured: Lee, Caroline Munro, Christopher Neame, Michael Kitchen, and Marsha Hunt. Great score as well!
I loved those as well. Gene Colan had based his Count's visage on Jack Palance. Colan's Count had an interesting cape. Huge collar that almost looked hooded. In some panels the cape looks a bit like a robe.
Read it many years ago, and was thinking of re-reading it soon (along with Frankenstein), and my son should be reading it soon as it is on his recommended reading list from school.
That is correct, sir.
From what I’ve seen, I consider the Nosferatu films to be the best. Both the Murnau and the Herzog versions. Max Schreck and Klaus Kinski are the most creepy vampires I’ve ever seen on film.
The Universal film is ok, but it was never my favourite among the Universal monster films, let alone Dracula films. Bela Lugosi is definitely a bit too theatrical for my taste.
The Hammer ones are pretty atmospheric if a little cheap-looking at times. Christopher Lee’s presence is a big plus. Obviously the first one is my favourite. I’d say Grave, Blood and Scars are the other ones I enjoy. Never really warmed to Prince or Rites. AD 1972 is an amusing rarity.
Coppola’s film is excellent I’d say. Music and cinematography contribute to an appriopriately weird atmosphere. I quite like how a film directed by the guy from The Godfather can be so bonkers. I also always enjoy Gary Oldman’s performances, same goes for this one.
Van Helsing is too noisy and dumb to be taken seriously, though Richard Roxburgh does pretty well considering the material he has to work with.
I love both of those films. Quarry was as suave as one can get:
"Oh, another vampire. Where are your fangs?"
"Where are your manners?"
I have. Many, many times. It is one of my favourite horror novels. Never adapted faithfully, to my chagrin. Coppola's pseudo-Dracula was a pure joke.
A leather-bound copy that will never leave the house.
A cheap paperback copy that I can take with me when I travel.
An annotated copy that I have yet to read.
A copy that looks like a genuine diary (but obviously isn't. ;))
I believe I have read the book four or five times, but the first time was in my native language.
I also have a reasonably "close" graphic novel adaptation but it failed to impress me visually.
There was an interesting paper back edition from the mid '60's published by Dell with an illustration of the Count as described by Stoker. Longish white hair, mustache, a bluish gray face (similar to the "sky gray" greasepaint Jack Pierce used on the Frankenstein Monster). That was one of my favorite cover arts for the novel.
This is the copy I used to have, Quite large, hardcover with a dustjacket and some magnificent illustrations.
Yes I did. It's in The Penguin Book of Vampire Stories. The influence if any was very faint.
Yes. In fact, Stoker discovered the name "Dracula" right before publication. The character was originally called Count Wampyr, and is also thought to be inspired by Sir Henry Irving. Stoker was intrigued by the history of Rumania and Vlad Tepesh and added that element very late into the process. The book took Stoker seven years to complete.
I wonder where the Lord Dragonpol fits into it all? Those sound like relatives of mine.
Stoker found the name in a footnote. He knew close to nothing about Vlad Tepes. Not his true name, not his favourite method of execution, not his ethnicity. Just his nickname and a bit of his history with the Turks.