Horror Film Review: Taste the Blood of Dracula (dir by Peter Sasdy)

Posted on October 15, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Two years after being temporarily destroyed at the end of Dracula Has Risen From The Grave, Dracula returned in 1970’s Taste The Blood of Dracula! Returning in the role and uttering only a handful of lines, Christopher Lee gave one of his most intimidating performances in the role of everyone’s favorite vampire.

Picking up where Dracula Has Risen From The Grave ended, Taste the Blood of Dracula opens with a sleazy merchant named Weller (Roy Kinnear) upsetting his fellow passengers during a carriage ride through Eastern Europe. After they forcefully toss him out of the carriage, Weller comes across a crucifix-impaled Dracula. Weller watches as Dracula dissolves into red dust. Weller gathers up the dust and Dracula’s ring and brooch.

A few months later, the plot picks up with three wealthy men in England. Hargood (Geoffrey Keen), Paxton (Peter Sallis), and Secker (John Carson) pretend to be charitable church goers but, in reality, they spend most of their spare time down at a wonderfully ornate brothel. One night, at the brothel, they meet a disgraced nobleman named Courtley (Ralph Bates), who was disinherited for attempting to hold a black mass. Intrigued by Courtley’s promise to give them an experience that they’ll never forget, the three men agree to purchase Dracula’s blood from Weller.

When they go to meet Courtley in a desecrated church, things suddenly go wrong. Courtley attempts to force the three men to drink from a goblet containing a mix of his and Dracula’s blood. After all three of the men refuse, Courtley himself drinks the blood. The men respond by beating Courtley to death and then fleeing from the church. After the men are gone, Courtley’s dead body transforms into a now living Dracula. Dracula announces that those who have destroyed his servant will now be destroyed themselves.

And he proceeds to do just that, turning the men’s children into vampires and then commanding them to kill their parents. Among those possessed are Alice (Linda Hayden), Hargood’s daughter for whom the film suggests Hargood may have incestuous feelings. Alice is in love with Paul (Anthony Corlan), the son of Paxton. When both Alice and his sister Lucy (Isla Blair) disappear, Paul sets out to find them and instead, comes across Dracula…

Taste the Blood of Dracula features Dracula at his cruelest (which, of course, makes it all the more ironic that his main motivation here is to avenge the death of his servant). Whereas Dracula could probably very easily kill all three of the men himself, his decision to use their children to get his revenge adds a whole new level of horrific ickiness to the film. Fortunately, none of the three men are particularly likable but still, it’s hard not to be disturbed when you’re confronted by the image of a vampirized daughter driving a stake into her own father’s heart.

But then again, that’s a part of the appeal of the old Hammer films, isn’t it? Hammer films actually “go there” in a way that the period’s American horror films would probably never quite dare.

As for Taste the Blood of Dracula, there’s a lot to recommend it. Director Peter Sadsy keeps the action moving, both the sets and the supporting cast are properly baroque, and how can you go wrong with Christopher Lee playing Dracula? Christopher Lee is one of those actors who could do so much with just a glare and the fact that his Dracula says very little only serves to make him all the more intimidating and frightening.

Christopher Lee, of course, has never made a secret of the fact that he didn’t particularly care much for the Hammer Draculas, often complaining that the films failed to stay true to the spirit of Bram Stoker’s conception of the character. Undoubtedly, Lee does have a point and the Hammer Draculas did decline in quality over the years. (Just wait until we get to Dracula A.D. 1972.) But Taste the Blood of Dracula is still a pretty effective vampire film. Hammer’s Dracula may not have been Stoker’s Dracula but, as played by Lee, he still dominates our dreams and nightmares.

Horror Film Review: Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (dir by Freddie Francis)

Posted on October 15, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

There’s a scene in 1968’s Dracula Has Risen From The Grave in which Maria (Veronica Carlson), the innocent niece of Monsignor Muller (Rupert Davies), sneaks out of her bedroom window and walks across the rooftops of a small village in Eastern Europe. She’s making her way to the bedroom of her boyfriend Paul (Barry Andrews), who the Monsignor has ordered her to stop seeing on account of the fact that Paul is an atheist. The camera views Maria from above with her pink dress and blonde hair contrasting against the gray city streets below her. It’s a beautiful scene and it is so visually stunning that you can forgive the fact that it doesn’t really move the story forward.

In its way, this scene is the epitome of everything that works about Dracula Has Risen From The Grave. Director Freddie Francis was an award-winning cinematographer who stepped in, at the last moment, to direct after original director Terrence Fisher broke his leg. Dracula Has Risen From The Grave is full of stunning imagery — shadow-filled forests, beautifully ornate bedrooms, and decaying castles and churches. When Christopher Lee’s Dracula shows up on screen, he literally seems to emerge from the shadows and when he attacks one barmaid who has made the mistake of disobeying him, the entire image is briefly tinted a blood red. When Dracula approaches his victims, his bloodshot eyes fill the entire screen. The film is full of so many memorable images that it’s easy to forgive the fact that, dramatically, Dracula Has Risen From The Grave is somewhat inert.

Picking up from where Dracula, Prince of Darkness left off, Dracula Has Risen From The Grave shows what happens when Monsignor Muller and a cowardly priest (Ewan Hooper) perform an exorcism at Dracula’s castle. The priest, frightened by thunder, attempts to flee but instead just ends up slipping and banging his head on a rock. The priest’s blood awakens Dracula (Christopher Lee) who, after putting the priest under his mental control, then seeks revenge on Muller by making Maria his bride. It’s up to Paul to try to save Maria’s life but, unfortunately, Paul is such an atheist that he refuses to recite a prayer even after he drives a stake through Dracula’s heart. This leads to perhaps the most dramatic staking fail in the history of vampire cinema.

Seriously, don’t trust atheists to kill your vampires…

How you respond to Dracula Has Risen From The Grave will probably depend on how much originality you demand from your 1960s British vampire films. Storywise, the film is nothing that you haven’t seen before and Barry Andrews doesn’t exactly make for an exciting hero. But, for me, the film’s visuals make up for the occasional weakness of the plot.

Add to that, Christopher Lee is in top form as Dracula. I’ve been trying to figure out the appeal of Lee’s Dracula because, unlike a lot of other actors who have played the role, Lee never attempts to turn the vampire into a sympathetic character. There is no romance to Lee’s Dracula. Unlike other cinematic vampires, Lee’s Dracula doesn’t spend his time mourning for a lost love or yearning for a release from having to be a prisoner to his undead state. Lee’s Dracula doesn’t even have the sense of humor that modern audiences have come to expect from their iconic villains. Instead, Lee’s Dracula is pure evil and yet, at the same time, Lee is such an imposing and charismatic actor that he makes evil compelling.

As I watched Dracula Has Risen From The Grave, I realized why Lee’s Dracula has such appeal. Lee’s Dracula sees what he wants and he takes it. He doesn’t allow anything to stand in his way and whenever boring mortals like Paul or the Monsignor attempt to stop him, he simply tosses them out of the way.

He’s evil.

He’s frightening.

And that’s exactly the way he should be.

Horror Film Review: Dracula, Prince of Darkness (dir by Terence Fisher)

Posted on October 15, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

“My master is dead but he left instructions that the house should always be ready for visitors.”

“Who was your master?”

“His name was Count Dracula…”

— A snatch of dialogue from Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966)

Dracula, Prince of Darkness is notable for many reasons.

First off, this movie marked Christopher Lee’s return to the role that he played 8 years earlier in The Horror of Dracula. After being forced to make one Dracula film without Dracula, Hammer Films was finally able to make a direct sequel to The Horror of Dracula.

As a result of Lee returning, this was also the first of the Hammer Draculas to feature the previously destroyed Lord of the Vampires being revived through a splash of blood. This was a plot element that all subsequent films in the series would feature and, to a certain extent, you have to admire Hammer’s efforts maintain some form of continuity. Whereas it would have been easy enough to just have Dracula show up with no explanation as to why he’s back, the Hammer films at least tried to make sure everything followed some sort of identifiable logic. (Or, at least they did until Dracula A.D. 1972 but we’ll get to that movie later…)

This was the first Dracula film not to feature (with the exception of the footage from Horror of Dracula that opens the film) Peter Cushing in the role of Van Helsing. And while the film probably would have been improved by the presence of Cushing, the film does come up with a more than adequate substitute in the form of Andrew Keir’s Father Sandor. Whereas Cushing’s Van Helsing always seemed to be a rather rational vampire hunter, Keir brings a truly demented energy to the role.

And finally, Dracula, Prince of Darkness is probably best remembered for being the Dracula film in which Dracula does not speak. He does hiss a few times but, for the most part, Dracula is silent throughout this entire film and, instead, relies on his servants Klove (Philip Latham) and Ludwig (Thorley Walters) to do most of the talking.

Why Dracula doesn’t speak is a matter of debate. Christopher Lee has claimed that he refused to say any of the dialogue that had been written Dracula while screenwriter Jimmy Sangster wrote, in his autobiography, that Dracula was specifically written to be a silent role. (Or, as Sangster put it, “Vampires don’t chat.”)

Regardless of why Dracula is silent, it actually works quite well. Sangster’s right. Vampires don’t chat and Christopher Lee’s haughty Dracula would be the least likely of all to make small talk. Dracula’s silence both reminds us of the contempt with which he views the living and it also plays up the animalistic aspects of the character. It helps, of course, that Christopher Lee is one of those actors who can do more with one dismissive glare than most actors could do with 20 pages of the most florid and overwritten dialogue.

As for the film itself, it serves as a reminder that the only thing that need happen for evil to be triumphant is for stupid tourists to take a holiday in Transylvania. Ignoring the warnings of practically everyone else on the planet, the Kents — Alan (Charles Tingwell) and wife Helen (Barbara Shelley) and Charles (Francis Matthews) and wife Diana (Suzan Farmer) — spend the night at Dracula’s castle. Dracula’s servant, Klove, murders Alan and drains his blood over Dracula’s ashes. Soon, Helen is a vampire, Diana has been selected to be Dracula’s latest bride, and it’s up to Sandor and Charles to save everyone’s soul.

Dracula, Prince of Darkness is a lot of fun. It’s full of all the usual Hammer touches — melodramatic dialogue, ornate castles, pretty costumes, plentiful gore, unfriendly villagers, and not-quite-brilliant heroes — and, best of all, it’s got Christopher Lee proving that Dracula doesn’t need to speak to be frightening. Subsequent films in the Hammer Dracula series would grow increasingly uneven but Dracula, Prince of Darkness is a worthy entry.

Horror Film Review: The Brides of Dracula (dir by Terence Fisher)

Posted on October 15, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

So, imagine this. Two years have passed since your film company released a low-budget film called Horror of Dracula. To the surprise of many, the film became an international hit that not only revived interest in the character of Dracula but also made a star out of an imposing and opinionated actor named Christopher Lee. Naturally, being a smart film mogul, you want to make a sequel to Horror of Dracula. Both director Terrence Fisher and screenwriter Jimmy Sangster have agreed to return to make a second part of the franchise. Now, all you have to do is recruit your star…

…and Christopher Lee doesn’t want to do the film!

There are conflicting reports on just how much Christopher Lee disliked the Hammer Dracula films. Lee, himself, has been inconsistent on the subject, occasionally claiming that he hated all of them and then other times saying that he only disliked the sequels. One thing that does remain consistent is that Lee reportedly feared being typecast as Dracula and, as a result, he initially declined to be a part of any sequel.

Nowadays, they’d probably just recast the role with Nicolas Cage. But this was the late 50s/early 60s and, instead of recasting, Hammer just made a Dracula film without Dracula. Yes, the film may have been called The Brides of Dracula but, beyond being mentioned in the film’s prologue, Dracula never makes an appearance. For that matter, there really aren’t any brides of Dracula either. There are three female vampires but none of them are turned into vampires by Dracula. Instead, the vampire in question is Baron Meinster (David Peel, who does a pretty good job in the role but who, needless to say, is no Christopher Lee).

Dracula does not return for The Brides of Dracula but his nemesis Prof. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) does. Cushing was so well-cast as Van Helsing and brought such a sense of righteous fury to the role that his presence goes a long way towards making up for the absence of Christopher Lee. When you look at and listen to Cushing’s Van Helsing, you’re left with little doubt that this is a man who has dedicated his life to destroying vampires and that he’s quite good at it.

And it’s a good thing that Van Helsing shows up because, regardless of whether Dracula is directly involved or not, Transylvania has some issues. The Brides of Dracula opens with a French school teacher named Marianne (Yvonne Monlaur) finding herself stranded at an old castle. The owner of the castle — Baroness Meinster (Martita Hunt) — allows Marianne to spend the night but asks her to please refrain from releasing her son, Baron Meinster, from the chains that hold him prisoner. Naturally, Marianne does exactly the opposite. She steals a key and sets the Baron free.

Of course, the Baron is a vampire and soon he’s feeding on the inhabitants of a nearby village. The Baron has also decided that Marianne should be his bride. Will Prof. Van Helsing be able to save Marianne’s soul and defeat a second vampire? You’ll have to watch the movie to find out!

And you certainly should. Once you get over the fact that Brides of Dracula does not feature Lee’s iconic Dracula, the film itself is surprisingly entertaining, filled with all of the gothic touches, creepy scenery, evil villains, bloody throats, and heaving cleavage that you would expect from a Hammer film. Peel, Hunt, and Monlaur are all well-cast and best of all, Peter Cushing is Dr. Van Helsing!

In short, it’s not bad for a Dracula film that doesn’t actually feature Dracula.

Horror Film Review Repost: The Horror of Dracula (dir by Terrence Fisher)

Posted on October 15, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

(As some of our longtime readers might remember, I originally posted this review on October 11th, 2013. I’m going to be posting reviews of all of the Hammer Dracula films today so I figured I would start things off by reposting my thoughts on the very first of them, 1958’s Horror of Dracula. Add to that, I happen to really like this review!)

Of all the monsters who have appeared in horror cinema, Count Dracula is perhaps the most iconic. Reportedly, Dracula first appeared on film in 1920, in a silent Russian film that is now considered to be lost. In 1921, he would appear in a Hungarian film called Dracula’s Death and in 1922, he would be renamed Count Orlok for the German masterpiece Nosferatu. Indeed, by the time Bela Lugosi gave his famous performance in Tod Browning’s Dracula, the count had been appearing in films for at least 11 years. In nearly 100 years of filmmaking, a countless number of actors have brought Dracula to life.

We could spend hours debating who was the best Dracula and certainly, there are some worthy contenders. Bela Lugosi brought a continental sophistication to the role, while John Carradine was properly intimidating and theatrical. Udo Kier, Gary Oldman, Thomas Kretschmann, Leslie Neilsen, Zandor Vorkov, and Frank Langella have all played the prince of darkness, to varying degrees of success.

Yet for me, as worthy as any of those actors may be, there is only one true Dracula and he was played by Christopher Lee.

Lee famously played Dracula in seven movies for Hammer Films and, though he has often complained about the quality of these films (especially the later ones, which tended to mix Dracula with hippies), they were largely responsible for making Christopher Lee into the iconic figure that he remains today. It’s also largely due to Lee’s performance that horror fans like me continue to discover and appreciate the films of Hammer today.

As played by Christopher Lee, Dracula was pure evil. Lee’s Dracula had no use for self-pity and one can only imagine what his reaction would have been if he had ever run into the self-torturing vampires of Twilight. Lee’s Dracula had no use for doubt or regret. Instead, he was a determined animal who was driven by a singular lust for blood.

And yet, at the same time, Lee brought an intelligence to the role that was often lacking in previous performances. Lee’s Dracula may have been an animal but he was a cunning animal. Whereas it’s easy for me to imagine escaping from the clutches of Bela Lugosi, I know that if Lee’s Dracula wanted me then he would have me. There’s no escape from Lee’s Dracula. He’s too quick, determined, and intelligent.

His animal nature made Lee’s Dracula frightening but it was his cunning and determination that made him dangerous and, ultimately, even sexy. (While I’ve read that audiences in 1931 swooned over Bela Lugosi, whatever sex appeal he may have had is lost on modern viewers like me.) It has often been argued that Bram Stoker meant for Dracula to be a symbol of all the desires that were repressed by Victorian society. That’s certainly true when it comes to Christopher Lee’s carnal and viscous portrayal of the character.

Of the seven Dracula films that Christopher Lee made for Hammer Films, the first remains the best. Released in 1958 and known as Dracula in the UK and the Horror of Dracula in the US, it revitalized the horror genre and helped to make stars of both Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Especially when compared to some of the sequels that Hammer subsequently produced, it remains one of the best Dracula films ever made.

The film is a very loose adaptation of Stoker’s original novel. Jonathan Harker comes to Dracula’s castle in Romania. Though posing as a librarian, Harker has actually come to the castle to drive a stake through the heart of both Dracula and his vampire bride. However, no sooner has Harker staked the bride than he’s overpowered and bitten by Dracula. Significantly, all of this occurs within the first 10 minutes of the film. As opposed to certain other Dracula films, Horror of Dracula gets straight to the point. And why shouldn’t it? After all, anyone watching the film already knows that Dracula’s a vampire so why waste time trying to convince us otherwise? We don’t watch Dracula for the familiar story as much as we watch to discover how different filmmakers will choose to tell that story.

When Harker’s colleague, Prof. Van Helsing (played with the perfect amount of intensity by Peter Cushing) shows up at the castle, he discovers that Harker is now a vampire and that Dracula is nowhere to be found.

Dracula, needless to say, is out for revenge. He stalks Harker’s fiancee Lucy, as well as Lucy’s brother Arthur Holmwood (Michael Gough) and his wife Mina (Melissa Stribling). Much as in Stoker’s original novel, Lucy is eventually turned into a vampire and it’s up to Van Helsing and Arthur to stop both her and her new master.

(Of course, in Stoker’s original novel, Harker is not turned into a vampire and instead marries Mina while the aristocratic Arthur is one of Lucy’s three suitors. However, I have to say that I always thought the literary Harker was a bit on the dull side and that Arthur was always my favorite character so I’m happy that he gets to be the hero here.)

If I had to pick one film to epitomize everything that I love about the Hammer brand of horror, it would be Horror of Dracula. As directed by Terrence Fisher, the film moves at an exciting, non-stop pace while the traditionally lush cinematography is almost bombastically colorful. Cushing and Lee, who were the best of friends off screen, make for formidable opponents, with Cushing embodying good just as effective as Lee embodied evil. Though it’s been over 50 years since Horror of Dracula was originally released, the film remains effective and, not coincidentally, a lot of fun.

Quite simply put, this is a film that, for so many reasons, remains a true pleasure to watch.

One final note — I often find myself lamenting that I was born several decades too late and I realize just how true that is whenever I watch a film like Horror of Dracula. Seriously, I would have loved to have been a Hammer girl, showing off my cleavage and getting hypnotized by Christopher Lee.

Seriously, what more could you want?

Horror on the Lens: Nosferatu (dir by F.W. Murnau)

Posted on October 15, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

This isn’t the first time that we’ve shared the classic 1922 silent vampire film Nosferatu here on the Lens but who cares? It’s not only one of the most influential films ever made but it’s also something of a Halloween tradition around these parts! Directed by the great German expressionist F.W. Muranu and featuring an iconic performance from Max Schreck, Nosferatu is a film that everyone should see at least once.

And here’s your chance!

Horror Trailer: The Woman In Black — Angel of Death

Posted on October 14, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

She’s back!

You can read my thoughts on the first Woman In Black here.

Horror on TV: Are You Afraid of the Dark? 1.8 “The Tale of the Nightly Neighbors”

Posted on October 14, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

When I first decided to devote some of October to featuring horror related TV shows, I knew that I’d have to include at least one episode of the classic Nickelodeon TV series Are You Afraid of the Dark? Back in the 90s, Are You Afraid of The Dark? was the best because it was a show about scary things but it was on Nickelodeon so you could watch it without having to worry about your mom coming in the room and making you change the channel.

This episode of Afraid of the Dark continues this sort of mini-vampire theme that we’ve got going. The Tale of the Nightly Neighbors was originally broadcast on October 3rd, 1992.

Horror Review: Yahtzee Croshaw’s Chzo Mythos Part 2 – 7 Days a Skeptic

Posted on October 14, 2014 by alexandrerothier

Following the success of 5 Days a Stranger, Yahtzee decided that, no! A one hit wonder just wouldn’t do! He had more horror tropes to nod to, more space to cover! And speaking of space that became the setting of the futuristic sequel 7 Days a Skeptic. Most flawed of the series from a narrative standpoint, it might be, however the most horrorific of them.

Skipping a few centuries right into the the year 2385, 7 Days (a game awfully ominous when referred to like this) is played through Jonathan Somerset, experienced psychiatrist of spaceship Mephistopheles. On exploration duty for the Earth Federation, the ship’s crew of Jonathan and five others find a sealed metal box adrift in space. Upon inspection, they find that it contains the remains of John DeFoe, character of some importance to the first game as players might recall. As the crew returns to their assigned duties, leaving the box unopened, Dr. Somerset realizes things start to grow veeeery eerieeee.

With a premise and aesthetical style reminiscent of sci-fi horror movies, particularly Alien, 7 Days is a nice shift while still retaining the characteristics that made its prequel scary. The isolation and inability to run away makes sense when away means out in the vacuum of outer space. Dream sequences still mix into reality, giving it an ethereal feel at times. And it further expands the tales of the series’ supernatural killer, giving him a more active role this time, which makes some parts really fucking scary.

It may sounds ridiculous and hamfisted at first to go from modern to futuristic in one game while still keeping the same themes, but it’s a title that does so unpretentiously. 7 Days a Skeptic is enjoyable and very very creepy and you should play it just for that. And if you don’t do it for the cold spike you feel while being chased by an insane murderer, play it for its sequels because, boy, it’s worth it. And I’ll get to that soon.

Horror Film Review: Dracula Untold (dir by Gary Shore)

Posted on October 14, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Last night, I finally got a chance to see Dracula Untold, the new film that claims to show us not only who the world’s most famous vampire used to be but also how he became a vampire in the first place. And I have to admit that I had strong hopes for Dracula Untold. I certainly did not think that it would be a great film but I was hoping that it would at least be fun.

And can you blame me?

After all, it is October and what better time of the year is there to see a film about the early days of a horror icon? Add to that, the film’s commercials all hinted that, at the very least, Dracula Untold would be full of over-the-top action, melodramatic performances, and ornate costumes. Sure, there was no hint to be found that Dracula Untold would actually turn out to be a good movie but how can you go wrong with the promise of a little baroque spectacle?

As well, who doesn’t love vampires? Who hasn’t, at some point, been intrigued by the mix of romance and morbid dread that epitomizes the vampire legend? And, of course, long before there was ever an Edward Cullen or a Lestat, there was Dracula.

So, yes, I had high expectation for Dracula Untold but I don’t think they were unrealistic. Ultimately, I was just hoping to see a fun and entertaining vampire film.

And, in all fairness, there were a few moments when Dracula Untold managed to be just that. Unfortunately, those moments were few and far between. For the most part, this latest Dracula film turned out to be rather bland and predictable, a well-produced film that failed to leave much of an impression. It was neither good enough to be memorable nor bad enough to be enjoyable. Instead, it just kind of was.

Dracula Untold opens in the Middle Ages, with the man that we know as Vlad the Impaler (Luke Evans) ruling Transylvania. Despite his fearsome reputation, we quickly see that Vlad is actually a very wise and benevolent king who truly loves his wife (Sarah Gadon) and his young son (Art Parkinson). However, when the new sultan of Turkey (played by Dominic Cooper) demands that Transylvania send him 100 young men to serve as slaves (much as Vlad himself was forced to do when he was younger), Vlad goes to war against the Ottomon Empire.

With his forces outnumbered, Vlad does what any self-respecting ruler would do. He goes to a cave and he talks to the Master Vampire (Charles Dance, under a ton of makeup). The Master Vampire agrees to give Vlad all the powers of a vampire but there’s a condition. In order to become human again, Vlad must go for three whole days without drinking any blood. If Vlad does drink blood, he will be cursed to be a vampire for the rest of his life.

Vlad takes the deal, fully intending not to drink any blood. As a result, Vlad can do all sorts of neat CGI tricks, like turning into a bat and fighting his enemies in slow motion. However, he can’t go out in the sun without his skin starting to burn and silver causes his eyesight to go all blurry. And, of course, he starts to crave blood almost immediately. As Vlad tries to defeat the Turks before losing his special powers, he also discovers that his own soldiers now fear him and his dark powers…

I don’t want to be too hard on Dracula Untold because, while my overall reaction was one of disappointment, there are still bits and pieces of the film that works. Charles Dance, for instance, gives a great performance as the Master Vampire. Dominic Cooper camps it up as the film’s nominal villain and, as a result, he’s a lot of fun to watch. Luke Evans is pretty to look at. The final showdown between Evans and Cooper is well-directed.

But, ultimately, the things that worked in Dracula Untold were the exception to the rule. For the most part, Dracula Untold is uninspiring and forgettable. Clocking in at 92 minutes, Dracula Untold is almost too short and quick for its own good. You never really find yourself becoming immersed in the film’s world and the majority of the film’s supporting characters were so thinly drawn that I struggled to keep straight who was who. (I swear, at first, it seemed as if one of Dracula’s friends was actually killed three separate times. It was only afterward, as I looked over the film’s credits, that I discovered that “friend” was actually three different characters who were so indistinguishable from each other that I had just naturally assumed that they were all meant to be the same guy.) There are occasionally hints of an intriguing political and sexual subtext, particularly in the scenes between Evans and Cooper, but the film is always in such a hurry to get to the next battle scene that those hints are often pushed to the side within minutes of having been brought up. It becomes obvious early on that Dracula Untold was mostly made to serve as the cornerstone of a new franchise and, as such, the film ultimately feels like a 90-minute prologue to a story that you’re not really sure will be worth all the build-up.

It’s not so much that Dracula Untold was a terrible film as much as it was just a painfully generic and predictable one. And a character as iconic as Dracula deserves better.