The Hammer Dracula films started with Dracula (or House of Dracula in the United States) in 1958. It spawned a total of nine feature films.
Hammer Films is almost exclusively associated with horror today. But it didn’t start that way. It was founded in 1934 and for two decades made mostly low-budget dramas — especially crime and mystery films.
It was only in 1955 that they produced their first horror science fiction film, The Quatermass Xperiment. And they stayed with that although they did slot in The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), which would become its own series of seven films.
Starting in the 1960s and continuing into the early 1970s, Hammer made little other than horror. It was the time that connected the words “Hammer” and “horror” together forever in the public’s mind.
Dracula (1958)
The first Dracula film is, not surprisingly, pretty much a retelling of the novel. There are a few notable differences, however. And I quite like them. First, Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) goes to Dracula’s castle to destroy the vampire. He quickly dies, however. He’s first turned into a vampire and then Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) stakes him.
The second major change is that Renfield is absent altogether. This has the advantage of preventing over-acting. And the character really isn’t necessary to the plot — especially in a film.
Finally, Dracula doesn’t change into different animals. Given the limitations of special effects at the time, it is great to avoid this.
This version is certainly as good as the two 1931 Dracula films. But I don’t know of any other Dracula films that work as well. These are classics for good reason.
The Brides of Dracula (1960)
After the enormous success of Dracula, Hammer was keen for a sequel. The problem was that Christopher Lee did not want to reprise his role. The answer? Make a Dracula sequel without Dracula!
It sounds like a disaster in the making. But the film works really well. After all, no one really cares about Dracula. He’s just a vampire with a name. Any vampire will do!
The Brides of Dracula is basically just the novel creatively reworked. French teacher Marianne (Yvonne Monlaur) comes to Transylvania for a new job. She finds herself at the castle of Baroness Meinster (Martita Hunt). It turns out, her Son, the Baron Meinster (David Peel), is a vampire she keeps chained up. She plans to feed Marianne to him. But instead, Marianne releases the vampire who goes on a rampage. Soon. the vampire comes after her and Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) must save her.
Renfield is back in the form of the housekeeper Gretta, played brilliantly by Freda Jackson. (Seriously, she has to spit out a ton of exposition and I don’t think I’ve ever seen it done so well.)
The worst thing about this film is that it brings back vampire bats. And they don’t look good!
The middle of the film also drags a bit. I guess they figure they are creating atmosphere. But that isn’t really happening. This part could definitely be cleaned up. But this is a minor complaint. And it leads to a final 15 minutes that are spectacular.
I may just be bored with the original story. But The Brides of Dracula is better than its predecessor. At the time, most critics dismissed the film (although it did well enough at the box office). Leslie Halliwell was a notable exception. He considered it the best of the Hammer Dracula films and gave it two stars (he gave most films zero stars; which he defined as “a totally routine production or worse.” Two stars “indicates a good level of competence and a generally entertaining film.”).
Today, most critics widely admire the film — but not as much as the first film.
Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)
Cushing’s out and Lee is back in! And the results are… Fine? Peter Cushing was working a lot at this time, so that may explain his absence. Maybe Hammer was a bit unhappy that he was doing so much for Amicus. But he was still making Hammer films like She (1965). They probably got Lee by offering him a lot of money.
Four tourists find their way to Dracula’s castle and his servant hangs one of them upside down, slits his throat, and lets the blood mix with Dracula’s ashes. Bingo! Dracula’s back! Of course, in the first film, Dracula’s ashes are scattered by the wind. But I’m not complaining.
Although Christopher Lee is back, he doesn’t speak. He just hisses a few times. Lee later claimed that he didn’t speak because the dialogue was terrible. But screenwriter Jimmy Sangster (as John Sansom) said this wasn’t true and that Dracula didn’t speak because, well, Dracula doesn’t speak. I assume there was little dialogue and Lee didn’t like what was there. Regardless, I find this kind of meanness very common in the film industry, where people act like what they are doing is important. It’s very disappointing.
In place of Peter Cushing, we get Andrew Keir as the gun-toting Father Sandor. He shows up at the beginning and near the end — just when he’s needed. But as with all these films, there is quite a lot of talking to hold off the final confrontation. But Keir is charismatic enough to make it unobjectionable.
Also in the film is Thorley Walters as Ludwig — this film’s Renfield. He exists to facilitate one plot element. It doesn’t make much sense. But he does add to the film!
Of the four tourists, only Barbara Shelley stands out — both as the only sensible person and later as a terrifying vampire.
Thankfully, there are no bats in this film. But the film greatly increases Dracula’s strength, which was pretty normal in the first two films. This is unfortunate, but understandable.
Dracula: Prince of Darkness was generally dismissed (but not hated) at the time and is widely admired today. I think it’s fairly weak. Christopher Lee is barely in it. Most of the cast is boring. But it works well enough and is certainly not painful to sit through.
Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968)
In this one, Christopher Lee gets some dialogue. He says, “There is a girl… The niece of the monsignor. Bring her to me. Bring her to me!” And, “Now my revenge is complete!” Not to mention, “Who has done this thing! Tell me who has done this thing!” and “Get that thing out of my sight! Throw it away!” And finally, “You have failed me. You must be punished!” With dialogue that rich, it is no wonder he agreed to speak in this film!
As with the previous film, but unintentionally this time, someone bleeds on Dracula’s corpse, and he’s back! People should take more care! Or it could just be lazy writing. At least Blacula got a voodoo spell.
Anyway, Dracula spends most of the film standing around — giving orders to his slaves. He’s really into a young blond woman (Veronica Carlson). He’s not interested in his red-headed slave (Barbara Ewing). This is despite her being the more attractive of the two. Dracula must have blonds!
The film is probably most interesting in that it inserted an atheist character whose lack of faith allows Dracula to escape. Of course, he finds religion right before the credits roll.
The last act is pretty much the same as it is in all Dracula stories. And shockingly similar to the ending of Dracula: Prince of Darkness. The difference is that Dracula is impaled on a big metal cross. And now it is necessary to quote the Bible in Latin to destroy Dracula. Of course, as we all know, someone will only need to cut themselves shaving in the area to bring back Dracula. This is only the fourth of nine films, after all!
Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)
In this one, Dracula is again brought back with the blood of the living. But at least this time there’s some religious mumbo jumbo. But after a satanist does the deed, the upper-class hypocrites beat him to death. When Dracula rises, he is pissed. So the film turns into a kind of revenge drama.
Dracula mostly works by seducing two of the men’s daughters. As usual, he is more fond of the blond one. But in the end, we find he doesn’t even care about her — only his revenge. Once he gets it, he is killed in by far the least satisfying way in the series up to now.
Taste the Blood of Dracula seems interested in social commentary with the strict Victorian men who are big-time sinners. But once this is established, the film drops it. And we are left with a bunch of characters we don’t know much about and care about even less.
The best part of the film is the very beginning with Roy Kinnear finding Dracula’s remains from the end of the previous film. The other actors in the film are great but they aren’t given memorable characters to play.
Another issue is the redness of Christopher Lee’s eyes. I’ve heard the apologetics. They are red when he’s angry and so on. And that is certainly what they try to do. But the truth is, his eyes are all over the place in terms of redness in this film.
This isn’t a bad film. The production values are good. The acting is as good as ever. But the script is weak. As a result, it’s kind of a slog to get through.
Scars of Dracula (1970)
This was the film that supposedly broke the Hammer Dracula series. Critics almost universally hated it at the time. And it doesn’t do a lot better today. This is remarkable to me because I think it is the best of the series since Brides.
The story centers around a young man who is trying to find his brother. The brother ran away from the angry father of a woman he slept with. The brother ends up at Dracula’s castle and as a result, everyone else does too.
There are two problems with the film. The first is that there are a lot of dorky bats. Thankfully, they are familiars; Dracula doesn’t turn into one. But that doesn’t change the fact that they look terrible. Dracula is revived by one of the bats vomiting blood onto his ashes. (There is one scene at the end where a bat kills a priest that works well.)
The other issue is that Dracula’s castle is built in a cliff and the matte painting for it is pretty bad. On the plus side, Dracula sleeps in a room that is only accessible from the cliff face. I really like this idea. And it is a major part of the plot.
Otherwise, the characters are more interesting than they have been in previous films. And Christopher Lee gets to do a lot more here. He also burns at the end and we see him in some great make-up. Actually, despite the special effects being weak here, the make-up effects are excellent throughout.
Dracula AD 1972 (1972)
This film is the most hated of the series. But don’t let that stop you. Dracula AD 1972 has received better notices as time has gone on.
It breaks with the convention before of films started where the last one ended. This one starts very strong with Dracula and Van Helsing fighting on a coach — ending with both men dying.
Then we jump ahead to swinging London of 1972 with some cool cats looking for kicks! They decide to have a Black Mass. But their leader (who has been established as awful) has the ashes of Dracula and his ring. You know where this goes!
After Dracula is raised, the police get involved and contact Lorrimer Van Helsing, who, like his ancestor, is an expert on such things. He also has a granddaughter who is one of the cool cats. She also has blond hair, and you know what that means!
It turns out that Dracula wants to end the Van Helsing bloodline. So the granddaughter could have any hair color at all. But he fails, of course.
Dracula AD 1972 is probably the most fun of any of the Hammer Dracula films. I really don’t understand where all the hatred comes from — unless it was just from people wanting the films to continue to be period films. The return of Peter Cushing really helps. Find this film and watch it!
The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973)
Two years after Dracula AD 1972, the bloodsucker is back. You just can’t keep the old man buried. And I do mean “old” because Christopher Lee is starting to show his age. At least when he’s on screen, which isn’t often. He also affects an Eastern European accent for the first (and only) time — but only as his alter ego DD Denham.
The Satanic Rites of Dracula introduces a conspiracy. Prominent members of society are part of some kind of Satanic cult. And MI5 is on the case! But they need help. So they bring in the two principals from AD 1972: Inspector Murray (Michael Coles) and Lorrimer Van Helsing (Peter Cushing).
Dracula wants to wipe out humanity so he got a Nobel Prize-winning scientist (Freddie Jones) to create a new more potent form of the black death. Meanwhile, Van Helsing’s granddaughter, Jessica, worms her way into the case. And she turns out to be rather better at sleuthing than the boys.
(Stephanie Beacham played Jessica in Dracula AD 1972. She has auburn hair. But the character had blond hair. Joanna Lumley replaced her in this film. She has brunette hair. But the character has auburn hair. Strange choices!)
Otherwise, this is your typical Dracula story. Dracula kidnaps Jessica to make her his bride. Van Helsing and Murray foil his plot. Dracula dies in a new and entertaining way.
The Satanic Rites of Dracula is not as good as AD 1972. But it’s still quite good. And I think it is more entertaining than middle-series films like Dracula Has Risen from the Grave.
The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974)
Christopher Lee is gone. He was replaced with John Forbes-Robertson as Dracula. David de Keyser was supposedly the voice of Dracula. I can confirm that Forbes-Robertson did not have that voice. Together, they are fantastic. They actually make me rethink my love of Lee who often sleepwalked through his parts.
In the film, Dracula takes over the body of Kah, the high priest of the Temple of the Seven Golden Vampires. Shen Chan is great in this role. (He died of a heart attack at the age of 44. Even still, IMDb lists 169 credits.)
The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires is a mashup of horror and martial arts genres. Van Helsing is in China where he hooks up with a bunch of kung fu masters who are all related (six boys and a girl). They destroy the golden vampires and van Helsing kills Dracula.
It’s hard to compare this film with the other 8 Hammer Dracula films. For one thing, Dracula is clearly tacked on to the main story. And so much of the film is just not horror.
Having said that, the film works remarkably well. I’m not a big fan of martial arts but there is no doubt that what’s done here is good.
One bad thing: the bats are back! But there aren’t a lot of them.
Ranking the Hammer Dracula Films
Am I really going to do this? It’s hard to rank these films. And as usual, I will not stand by these rankings. However, I will say that the first 4 are must-watch films. I recommend watching the next two. But you can probably miss the last three
- Dracula AD 1972 (1972)
- The Brides of Dracula (1960)
- Scars of Dracula (1970)
- Dracula (1958)
- The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973)
- The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974)
- Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968)
- Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)
- Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)
The good thing about Dracula is that everyone knows about him and his lore. So you are fine just watching Dracula AD 1972 alone. And I hope you will! Sure, it isn’t exactly the classic period Dracula films that Hammer is known for. But it’s fun.
Let me end with a thought. Anne Rice was a remarkable writer. But she brought us the modern trend of sexy vampires and the romanticization of vampire lore. I don’t like this. It pains me to watch this kind of stuff. It’s boring.
What’s more, if the lore is correct, Christianity is true. And in that case, I’m going to pray to Jesus and get eternal life in yum-yum land. Not get “eternal” life in a coffin. Vampires are the baddies! Remember that. Watch films where Christopher Lee is sexy but evil. That’s what these stories are supposed to be!
Dracula (1958) poster via IMDB under Fair Use. The Brides of Dracula poster via IMDB under Fair Use. Dracula: Prince of Darkness poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use. Dracula Has Risen From the Grave poster via IMDb under Fair Use. Taste the Blood of Dracula poster via Amazon under Fair use. Scars of Dracula poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use. Dracula AD 1972 poster via IMDb under Fair Use. The Satanic Rites of Dracula poster via Amazon under Fair Use.The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.
