Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

david-sarkies A part of me is quite baffled that a couple of big name stars sunk so low as to appear in what is effectively a pretty cheesy horror movie. Well, I'm probably being a bit harsh though since Christopher Lee has gone down in history as being the actor to play Dracula, just as Boris Karloff is seen as The Frankenstein's Monster (and as it turns out the Mummy as well). The problem was that the acting actually wasn't all that fantastic, and the movie, you have to admit, is actually pretty corny. Mind you, it isn't one of those 'so bad that it is actually good' type of movies, nor is it cheesy in the sense that it is bad – The Horror of Dracula is a classic movie, and rightfully so, it is just that looking back at this film from 2017 it does make me scratch my head in wonder.I probably don't need to go to much into the plot because, well, it's Dracula and I'm sure we all know the plot. No, come to think of it, we don't because I get the feeling that most of us think that the plot of Dracula is similar to Rocky Horror Picture Show, when in reality it isn't. In fact it is closer to the book, though there are quite a few poetic licenses used, such as making Jonathon Harker a rather minor role, and also switching the female characters around (Lucy is now Harker's fiancé, and they have introduced a completely new character as well). Other than that the plot is similar in that we are dealing with Dracula coming to the civilised world to wreck havoc.The film itself is pretty basic, and actually seems to be quite low budget as well. However, as I suggested, it isn't actually a bad film. It's a classic, and rightfully so, particularly since it launched this whole modern horror genre. Mind you, we are talking about slasher flicks here, though a part of me was half expecting that Dracula would eventually go on a killing spree, particularly since they kill of Harker near the beginning of the film. However, this turned out not to be the case. In the end, it is quite a fun film, and it actually makes me want to go and watch some of the Boris Karloff classics as well (though I think I'll stay away from some of the more cheesier Dracula films).

qmtv This Story Sucks. Acting is Crap. Best part of the movie is the cinematography, sets and music. The story and acting sucks. Lee's acting is the worst. His opening dialogue about categorizing his books for his library is nonsense. Dracula with a British accent. A real disappointment. Lee looks good in the Dracula costume. But once he opens his mouth, not to bit, to speak, it's laughter time. Peter Cushing is good. But nothing can save this movie. Please stop being blinded by the love of Dracula, and the costumes. The sets, costumes, cinematography and music are very good. But the story is just painful. The dialogue and accents embarrassing.C rating for a B movie. 3 stars.

chaswe-28402 Some years ago it was written that "Lee and Cushing are the only Dracula and Helsing on the cinematic map, in the hall of fame, and I can't see them ever being bettered." That is the general and overwhelming consensus on this site, although there are still a few laughable retards in their habitual denial.Dracula and van Helsing, in this version, are unbelievably real. They are totally convincing. Van Helsing is the archetypal Victorian ethical gentleman, courteous, considerate, dauntlessly resolute, athletic and well-informed. Dracula is the pagan defeated demon from immemorial ages past, a fiendish but superbly imposing nobleman from a forgotten age.The acting support is adequate if not great, though memorably good are Woodbridge, the surly landlord; Malleson, the jolly undertaker; the corruptible customs official; Mina (or Lucy) and the little girl. The geography is distinctly vague. An excellent anachronistic touch is the bottle of Gordon's gin in the inn's uncertain locality, just the kind of familiar everyday British product you'd expect to find in Transylvania --- if that's where this is.I've seen some of the other versions, and they are all totally forgettable. This one is indelible. You could say it has permanent bite; and the plot holes are legion but quite irrelevant.

Connor Martin The first of the Hammer Dracula films, Horror of Dracula stars Peter Cusing and Christoper Lee as Van Helsing and Dracula. The film is an interesting take on the Dracula story, which, even by 1958, had been done to death. The film does some interesting things with the story while remaining true to the source material. Cusing and Lee are amazing in this film. Every time Cusing is on screen, you can't help but watch. He is just so captivating. Lee also plays probably the scariest Dracula since Max Sheirck in Nosferatu. The film is surprisingly entertaining, with Cusing proving himself to be the first real horror hero. The film is a massive influence on horror today and has a lasting impact that not a lot of horror films from the era have.