Horror of Dracula

For the longest time I thought I had seen this movie, but I hadn't, so I watched:

Horror of Dracula (1958).

This is Hammer Horror's first Dracula movie and yes it stars Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. The reason I thought I'd seen this is due to the somewhat confusing movie titles. I had seen Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) and Count Dracula (1970). Since they all pretend to be in the 1800's and because Stoker's book has been retold in film as much or more than Batman's origins, I got confused.

Now that we're on track, lets look at Horror of Dracula, or Dracula as it was originally called. They changed the name to avoid confusion with Dracula (1941) starring Bela Lugosi. (See what I mean with the titles?) In this version we get most of the familiar names, but a lot has been changed. Jonathan Harker arrives at Castle Dracula to be the librarian instead of as an estate agent. He is also there to straight up kill Dracula whom he already knows is a vampire. There are other such changes as well. Dr. Seward is only a doctor and doesn't hunt vampires. Lord Arthur Holmwood loses his title and is married to Mina, while Lucy is his sister and is engaged to Harker. Also, Dracula doesn't go to England. These changes were done for financial reasons as Horror of Dracula had a fairly small budget. At first I was a bit surprised and confused at the changes, but they work. The script writer Jimmy Sangster did a very good job shrinking the story without losing the important and impactful parts.

The score is a somewhat typical 50's bombastic affair that works well to heighten the scenes. Not something I'd sit down and listen to, but not unpleasant by any means. Visually Horror of Dracula is a feast. Stylish, elegant and well shot, I have no complaints whatsoever. The cinematography isn't amazing but solid. It does what it is supposed to do.

It is the actors who really shine here. Lee is great in his first outing out of the ten times he played Dracula. Elegant and charming when he needs to but wildly feral when angry. The rest of the time he's a dark towering menace that commands the room effortlessly. Cushing is likewise superb. He brings together the steel of the vampire hunter with a gentle sympathy for those afflicted by Dracula. Michael Gough plays Arthur Holmwood who accompanies Van Helsing for a lot of the movie, and serves as a bit of audience surrogate at first as he needs things explained and then, once he is convinced, joins in to end Dracula.

Horror of Dracula is also as far as I can tell, the first movie where the victims really show his seductive powers. They wait for him with both fear and excitement. Tame by today's standards but I have to assume that in '58 it was pretty scandalous to show a lady make herself ready to receive Dracula in her bedroom. There is no burglary here, no hypnotism to hide behind, they want him, in fact they act almost like addicts desperate for a fix. Today we're used to vampires being sexy but back then it was another story.

So, do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. Hammer made a lot of movies back in the day, and while some are not terribly good, Horror of Dracula is great. Watch it without expectations and just enjoy the spectacle. If you only want to watch one film where Lee plays the count, make it this one.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

There is so much more to learn.

I have recently been watching Middle-Earth lore videos and they are really fascinating.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a lot in his lifetime. Pretty much everyone has heard of The Lord of the Rings trilogy as well as The Hobbit, or There and Back Again. Some have heard of the Silmarillion as well, but there is a massive list of books in his name. Some are his letters, some are poetry and some are things his son Christopher edited together. Full list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien_bibliography

But back to the videos. I have been watching a few different channels, but In Deep Geek is one I'm confident in recommending. There is other stuff on there as well, but I haven't watched those. What I like is that everything is based on Tolkien's actual writings, there is no guess work or 'your guess is as good as mine' things presented as fact.

Here is a playlist of almost 200 videos to start with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAMI2M4Uu44&list=PLVTclEEyY1SKFumpT86h-y6jikkEUKIAH 

 So, if you like Middle-Earth and want to learn more, like what were the Barrow-Wights? Or what was The Watcher outside Moria? Perhaps you want to learn why Sauron had no idea The Shire existed or indeed what Pipeweed is, then make yourself comfortable and enjoy.

 

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week! 

   

The People Who Own the Dark

This week I watched:

The People Who Own the Dark (1976).

This Spanish thriller, with an admittedly great title, is not really what you would think from the front cover or the blurb. A small group of powerful and influential men head to a large old villa (called a castle) for some debauchery. The owners of the house have procured some willing women but just as the drug fueled festivities are about to begin, the house is shaken by a massive force. When the party-goers come up from the cellar they find the maids completely blind. Being the men they are they soon realize that there has been a nuclear war. When they head down to the local town, they find that everyone there has also been struck blind. The synopsis states that “soon they discover the existence of a sinister group called The People Who Own The Dark”. This statement is misleading but not entirely false.

The blind villagers are the people who own the dark, even though the promotional material wants to make it look like there is something deeper and even more sinister. What is interesting is that the main antagonists in the movie are the blind villagers who act essentially like zombies. They move in groups and attack the main characters furiously. (They have some reason for this, but that is spoiler territory). The blind do function better than one might think even though they can't see, which gives them a very menacing presence.

The People Who Own the Dark is a pretty well made movie despite the vague element of exploitation and sleaze. There is barely any nudity and the blood is fairly muted. It is the psychological elements that stand tall. Partially the horror of Nuclear Armageddon and partially the fear of being targeted by a large group out to kill you. There is also the element of general survival what with the radiation and all.

The actors are all veterans and the director León Klimovsky who also directed The Werewolf vs the Vampire Woman handles things competently. There is nothing more to really say on that matter, either for or against the movie.

The exploitation element is a bit odd to be honest. Since the movie was never going to use it, why was it included in the first place? It could just as well have been a hunting weekend or someone's birthday. This is even odder when you factor in the clumsy marketing attempt that focuses on just that element that then barely shows up. If you sat down and watched The People Who Own the Dark because you were in the mood for some 70's sleaze you'd be pretty damn disappointed.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, it is actually pretty good. By using a horde of blind people that can think instead of the tired, cliched shambling horde of the undead, we get a pretty neat and scary threat. The movie is a bit too short to really explore the situation the main characters are in so we don't get any deeper message, but what is there is well worth watching. The People Who Own the Dark was never going to be a masterpiece or even a cult classic, but I for one was not disappointed.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

Night Moves but not Bob Seger

Because I liked The Conversation (1974) a friend recommended:

Night Moves (1975).

Harry Moseby (Gene Hackman) is a Hollywood private investigator who is hired by an aging minor star to find her runaway teenage daughter Delly (Melanie Griffith). He finds out from Delly's on/off boyfriend Quentin (James Woods) that she left for Florida where her stepdad Tom (John Crawford) lives. With his own marriage teetering on the edge, Harry goes off to find the runaway but he will find more than he expected and in more ways than one.

It is worth pointing out that The Conversation and Night Moves are completely different movies. The only thing they have in common is Gene Hackman as a private investigator and being made in the mid 70's. Both movies are good but The Conversation is in my opinion better by a clear margin.

First off, the actors are all great. This was Melanie Griffith's first credited movie role, and as she wasn't even planning on becoming an actor, her portrayal of Delly is very good. To be fair, a teenage girl playing a teenage girl isn't exactly a strenuous job, but she is good.

Night Moves is also technically well made, even though you won't find any stunning visuals. I'd say that is more because they wanted a realistic, intimate close up feel rather than a sweeping cinematic experience.

However when I was done watching I couldn't help feel Night Moves was missing something. It might be I overlooked something subtle, I'm not sure. I love a movie that doesn't have to spell it out to the audience in ten foot tall letters, but being so subtle that important things are missed isn't good either. I am pretty sure a scene has to have been missing though. When Harry arrives in Florida he meets Delly and Paula (Jennifer Warren) who is stepdad Tom's girlfriend. Tom, a pilot, is off in his pontoon plane as Harry arrives, but we see him land on the water by his house. Then in the next scene they are all talking like old friends, but we never saw Harry and Tom meet, and that feels very odd in a movie that takes such pains to show small mundane details.

My other complaint is that the “big thing” falls a bit flat when it is finally revealed. Everything makes sense and there aren't any plot holes, it's more down to how the movie deals with it. I'm having real trouble explaining this without spoiling anything here. Imagine if Luke Skywalker upon learning that Vader is his father had shrugged and said “well, shit”. Underwhelming but technically correct. My Luke example is an exaggeration, but it points to how Night Moves felt in the end.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I do. Despite my complaints, Night Moves is a good time. It stands tall as a good example of why 70's cinema was so great. Night Moves is one of those movies that are all about the experience, a ride if you will. Sure it has a few problems, but it is genuinely a good movie. It is a product of its time for all the right reasons.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!