In 1958, a horror film titled "The Curse of Dracula" was released, bringing the sinister vampire character to life on the silver screen. This iconic movie introduced audiences to the terrifying Count Dracula, portrayed by Christopher Lee. The film was based on Bram Stoker's classic novel, "Dracula." The sinister curse of Dracula unfolds as the story follows Jonathan Harker, who arrives at Castle Dracula to finalize a property transaction. Little does he know that he has stepped into a web of horrors. Dracula, an immortal vampire, seeks to spread his curse and terrorize the world.
After Hammer Film Productions lit the fuse of the gothic horror revival with 1957’s The Curse of Frankenstein, 1958 is the year when the genre really explodes once again, and the new wave of imitators surpasses even the sci-fi horror films of the day, which are still going strong. Keynoted by Terence Fisher’s sumptuous Horror of Dracula, the horror genre has arguably its strongest overall year of the 1950s.
Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee represented the two godfathers of Hammer Horror, and were paired up in many Hammer films and again in productions by competing British studio Amicus, or independent films such as Horror Express but it s Horror of Dracula where the two have their most iconic confrontation. Truthfully, I found Dracula lacking in atmosphere , a brisk 90 minute running time condensing the key moments of the original Stoker story down to its most identifiable aspects, albeit slightly modified in some elements, but both Cushing and Lee are excellent in their respective roles.
Dracula, an immortal vampire, seeks to spread his curse and terrorize the world. Christopher Lee's portrayal of Dracula captivates viewers with his chilling presence and commanding performance. The film's atmospheric settings, including Castle Dracula and eerie graveyards, enhance the sense of dread and fear.
Movie Review – Dracula (1958)
After years of being tied up with rights over at Universal Pictures, Dracula finally made his British debut in the second of the original three Hammer Horror classics to reboot famous monster icons, following The Curse Of Frankenstein the previous year. Starring Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing in the key roles of Dracula and Van Helsing respectively, Dracula helped to cement the British studio as an iconic horror film production franchise, although they’d been producing films in one form or another since the 1930’s. The resurgence in horror during the fifties and sixties, when Hammer ruled supreme, enabled the studio to quickly become the go-to place for production on this quick-and-easy subgenre. Even given its place in horror film history, however, and the exquisite casting afforded it, I really didn’t like this film.
Young Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) arrives at Castle Dracula, somewhere in Germany, under the pretence of becoming the castle’s librarian. In fact, however, he is hoping to destroy the resident living there, the vampire Dracula (Christopher Lee). When Dracula discovers his true motive, he turns Harker into a vampire himself, and it falls to Harker’s friend, Professor Van Helsing (Cushing), to slay him before he can fall to harm. Returning to England, Harker’s sister Mina (Melissa Stribling), her husband Arthur (Michael Gough), and Jonathan’s fiancee Lucy (Carol Marsh) all become entwined in Van Helsing’s pursuit of Dracula and his malignant presence in their lives, with the intent to trap and kill the immortal being before can kill again.
Despite boasting the talents of Cushing, Lee and a young Michael Gough (whom I didn’t recognise until I Googled the cast listing), Dracula’s 1958 outing didn’t interest me at all. I think I can definitely put my finger on why, but I went into the viewing expecting to be blown away or at least enthralled, given the film’s status as a classic of the genre. And let’s face it, Peter Cushing is intrinsically incapable of a bad performance, despite the quality of the film he’s in. Truthfully, I found Dracula lacking in atmosphere , a brisk 90 minute running time condensing the key moments of the original Stoker story down to its most identifiable aspects, albeit slightly modified in some elements, but both Cushing and Lee are excellent in their respective roles.
The film’s script, credited to Jimmy Sangster (who would also scribe the second sequel to this film, Dracula: Prince Of Darkness, in 1966) never allows the sinister presence of Dracula or the malevolent nature of the story to really develop, thrusting us into the world of the famous vampire without so much as an introduction to it. It’s a stark difference to the original 1930’s film or the 90’s Coppola version where the aesthetic and landscape of those films’ internal setting virtually oozes menace and weight. Cushing’s Van Helsing aside, the film’s characters never get much introduction or time to develop, remaining largely one-dimensional to the lead roles, and even Christopher Lee’s Dracula feels – and I can’t believe I’m saying this about a Christopher Lee performance – anaemic in many respects, a portrayal of a character worked on the understanding that we, the viewer, already know who it is. This was an annoying aspect of the film I couldn’t shake, as much as I wanted to like it.
The film’s dullish cinematography certainly feels torn from the 1950’s, that grainy visual hue many British films of the vintage displayed looking at least charmingly anachronistic. Set design is sumptuous, costuming is of course a key feature (the female characters all look brilliant), and the lighting and camerawork on the cinematography are between competent and terrific. Directed by Terence Fisher, the film’s overt sexuality and Gothic overtones are practically inert, at least in my opinion, and I found the stuttering pacing overall a real problem to fully enjoying the movie. Fisher’s avoidance of genuine tension over quick-cut horror tropes felt overblown, accompanied by a bombastic score (by James Bernard) that struggled to keep itself beneath the story, and Dracula isn’t so much a detailed vision of pure evil as it is an exercise in early jump-scare horror. This in itself isn’t a problem, but the overall manner in which its executed isn’t as effective today.
Of the performances, Cushing holds the film together as Van Helsing, offering a somewhat supernatural ability for exposition without sounding like a textbook, and (probably unsurprisingly) his Van Helsing feels more like a variant of Doctor Who than Cushing’s own portrayal of the Doctor would be a decade later. Cushing feels like he’s entrenched fully in the role, immersing himself in the period’s varied technological accoutrements and personifying rigid Virtuous Good to a tee. Lee, as Dracula, imposes himself in every scene he’s in but the character felt bland, and occasionally laughably trite, a startling sense of indifference in my feelings for the legendary actor’s portrayal shocking me more than the film itself ever did. Supporting roles to Gough, Melissa Stribling, Carol Marsh and a young Janina Faye as Mina’s daughter, Tania, are competently performed, whilst the first act performance by John Van Essyn, as the tragically short-lived Harker, is strangely wooden and unevenly captured by Fisher’s nonchalant camerawork.
Look, I did enjoy Dracula for what it was, but I don’t think it was a very good film, let alone a stylish icon of the genre’s legacy. There’s an unkempt rawness to the film that didn’t work for me, despite some attempted stylish cinematography and a sense of the character’s powers being of the highest calibre here. Were it not for Cushing (or Lee, for that matter) the film would have never worked at all, and I think it’s the fact it felt like it was rushing the story, rather than basking in it, that ruined it a bit for me. I get it, this is a classic for the genre, and the “one that re-started it all”, but the ’58 Dracula was a bit of an anticlimax in my opinion. Grain of salt, folks.
. Renfield doesn't appear in the film.
The Curse of Dracula successfully establishes a haunting atmosphere that remains iconic in horror cinema. The film underscores the theme of the vampire's curse, which spreads like an infectious disease. Once bitten by Dracula, the victims are doomed to become creatures of the night themselves, perpetuating the cycle of horror. This curse is at the heart of the film, fueling the suspense and tension as the characters grapple with their impending fate. Moreover, The Curse of Dracula holds a societal undertone, representing the fear of the unknown and the consequences of indulging in one's desires without restraint. Dracula embodies the dark side of human nature and tempts his victims with promises of eternal life and power. The influence of Dracula as a character extends far beyond this single film. Christopher Lee would reprise the role in several other movies, solidifying his status as the quintessential Dracula for generations to come. Moreover, the success of "The Curse of Dracula" paved the way for numerous vampire films and contributed to the enduring fascination with vampires in popular culture. In conclusion, "The Curse of Dracula" in 1958 marked a turning point in horror cinema, embodying the sinister curse of the vampire character on the silver screen. Christopher Lee's portrayal of Dracula and the film's atmospheric settings captivate audiences, creating a haunting and suspenseful experience. The film's exploration of the vampire's curse and the theme of human desires adds depth to its storytelling. This horror classic remains a significant contribution to the genre and continues to fascinate audiences to this day..
Reviews for "The Transylvania Curse: The Legacy of "Dracula" (1958)"
1. John - 2/5 stars
"The sinister curse of Dracula 1958 was a disappointment for me. The storyline lacked originality and failed to capture my interest. The acting was unconvincing, especially from the lead actors, who seemed to be going through the motions. The special effects were subpar and did little to enhance the overall viewing experience. I was left feeling unsatisfied and underwhelmed by this film."
2. Sarah - 1/5 stars
"I found The sinister curse of Dracula 1958 to be a complete waste of time. The plot was predictable and uninteresting, filled with clichés and stereotypes. The actors delivered wooden performances, and it was difficult to empathize or connect with any of the characters. The film failed to build any suspense or tension, resulting in a lackluster viewing experience. I would not recommend wasting your time on this dull and uninspired movie."
3. Michael - 2/5 stars
"The sinister curse of Dracula 1958 had the potential to be an entertaining horror film, but it fell short in almost every aspect. The pacing was slow, and the story felt disjointed and unengaging. The makeup and costume designs were outdated, failing to create the desired eerie atmosphere. The dialogue was unimpressive and lacked depth, making it difficult to become invested in the narrative. Overall, I was disappointed by this film and would not recommend it to fans of the horror genre."
4. Emily - 2/5 stars
"The sinister curse of Dracula 1958 was nothing more than a generic vampire movie. The plot was predictable, and the characters felt one-dimensional. The performances were lackluster, with no stand-out performances from the cast. The film relied too heavily on overused jump scares and failed to deliver any real suspense or scares. Overall, it was a forgettable and uninspiring addition to the vampire genre."