• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

Garp's Franchise Film reviews

BONUS: 'Count Dracula' [1970]

Christopher Lee snuck in another variation of his most famous role in 1970, but for director Jess Franco this time rather than Hammer Films. The stellar cast includes Klaus Kinski as the mad Renfield and Herbert Lom as Van Helsing.

I could not get into this film at all. I drifted in and out, nodding off occasionally, only to awake to strange sights. Are our heroes being attacked by stuffed dead animals? It certainly looks like it. 

Perhaps to distinguish this from his Hammer roles, Lee sports a stylish moustache as Dracula. He lends the usual gravitas to the film, and Lom is an equally serious Van Helsing. Kinski is mute throughout and strangely subdued as the fly-eating lunatic.

It has an early 70s European style - zooming in for close-ups, zooming back out - and had a stagey feel as if it was adapted from a play rather than a book. Everything felt wooden, overly dramatic and, frankly, dull. My intermittent napping did me the world of good, though.
 
BONUS: 'Van Helsing' [2004]

Van Helsing has never looked like this before. Hugh Jackman utilises his sneer and biceps to defeat another iteration of Dracula, as well as a host of well-known gothic monsters.

As a visual appetizer, I watched the animated short 'Van Helsing: The London Assignment' which adds a little flavour to some of the characters we meet later. It has a Batman look and style to it, especially 'Gotham by Gaslight', with a mix of 2D and CG animation. Not essential but I liked it well enough.

And then onto the main course. The film starts in black and white and looks great; it's almost a pity they didn't confound expectations and go the whole hog with the rest of the film, which has a drab enough palette anyway. The opening sequence is a lover letter to the old Universal Monster films and it's unfortunate that the filmmakers weren't able to quite carry on the homage longer.

The plot of 'Van Helsing' is... well, there's a lot of it, shall we say. I imagine they were hoping for the start of a franchise, with the mystery of Van Helsing's backstory left mostly hanging, but also concerned that their hopes would be dashed. Therefore, to hell with it, let's throw everyone in the mix in case we don't get another chance. So, along with Dracula and his brides, we have Dr. Jekyll & his alter-ego, werewolves, Frankenstein & his monster, Igor, etc... It's like the full three seasons of 'Penny Dreadful" squashed into an overlong film.

Yes, this film is too long, bursting at the seams to include every character and set piece. Don't get me wrong - the film looks great, overall. The sets and production are top-notch - a sort of steampunk vibe -  and the CGI works in a cartoony kind of way. But it loses its way, unsure, I think, as to where it's aiming. It is too scary for kids, too tame for adults and, just, too much altogether.

Acting-wise, Richard Roxburgh deserves special mention for his Dracula, portraying him like a swaggering rockstar, as does David Wenham as the comic relief sidekick friar. Jackman and Kate Beckinsale as the leads are fine but don't seem to having as much fun as their co-stars, taking it more seriously, alas. I can't say I wasn't entertained - I was, when I realised I should forget what was going on and why and just let the visuals wash over me - but some restraint could have made this so much better. I probably would have preferred this taking off rather than 'Underworld' in that case.
 
I'm a big fan of the 2004 Van Helsing. It's a bit of a mess, and it de has its flaws, but I just find it so much fun to watch. I'm definitely not the biggest fan of Hugh Jackman in this movie, I agree that The sidekick is much more entertaining. I'm not sure how I feel about this version of Dracula...
 
jrWHAG42 said:
I'm a big fan of the 2004 Van Helsing. It's a bit of a mess, and it de has its flaws, but I just find it so much fun to watch. I'm definitely not the biggest fan of Hugh Jackman in this movie, I agree that The sidekick is much more entertaining. I'm not sure how I feel about this version of Dracula...
Click to expand...

I'd never seen it before, don't remember it coming out and didn't know it bombed, so I went in with zero expectations. I can see why it's not everyone's chalice of blood, but it's certainly not as awful as some of the reviews I've since read. I would welcome watching a B&W, trimmed -down fan edit, if it exists.
 
BONUS: 'Dracula 2000' [2000]

Oh dear.

Dracula (Gerard Butler) is resurrected accidentally during a bungled heist and goes on a biting spree in spooky New Orleans, bent on making Van Helsing's daughter Mary (Justine Waddell) his bride, while Van Helsing's assistant (Jonny Lee Miller) gets in the way.

The idea of bringing Dracula into the modern day isn't new and neither, it seems, is the predicament of what to do with him once he's there. 'Dracula 2000' is 'presented' by Wes Craven, whatever that means, and does have a 'Scream' feel to it - sort of an obnoxious 'knowing' about it. Not quite a wink to the camera, just a belief that it's cooler than it actually is.

The film starts OK - the robbery is predictably high-tech and goes spectacularly wrong, but then things go further south when the ensemble reach the Big Easy. Christopher Plummer is good, of course, playing Drac's old nemesis with an interesting twist, and Jennifer Esposito is the best of the brides by far. Jonny Lee Miller, though. What are you doing? Why are you even there? Are you sidekick, comic relief, hero? Do you even know? Admittedly he is given little to work with, but he seems completely bored throughout, and it's infectious.

Dracula is played by Gerard Butler with immaculate hair. I admit, his hair was more fascinating to me than all of Miller's performance. He talks strangely here, as if he recorded the lines backwards and they were then played the right way round. I suppose it's supposed to sound supernatural, but it's merely off-putting. That hair, though.

Drac & Mary have a Kylo-Rey forcelink going on for reasons that aren't particularly interesting and I began to doze off. When I came to, I was presented with a unique and ridiculous flashback revealing Dracula's own backstory. It is terrible, laughable almost, but part of me admires the filmmakers for running with it anyway.

For some reason, there were 2 sequels released, and because I hate myself I shall watch both of them over the next couple of days.
 
BONUS: 'Dracula II: Ascension' [2003]

Wow! How did this not get a theatrical release? Oh yeah. Because it's shite.

'Dracula II' starts soon after 'Dracula 2000' ended, with everyone's favourite vampire's burned body being sent to a morgue. His unworldly status is swiftly noted by some med students, who decide to steal the corpse along with copious bags of blood and revive him in a literal bloodbath. Crazy med students. Why can't they just get their kicks by doing drugs and having casual sex like every other student?

The revived Dracula here is possibly the most boring iteration of the character every shown on screen. He looks like Billy Idol, only slightly more alive. (There is a throwaway line explaining the fact that he does not resemble Gerard Butler from the first film. Apparently he takes on a new form with each resurrection. A Dr. Who with fangs.) He is chained up in an empty swimming pool surrounded by sun lamps, mustard seeds and knotted ropes for the entire film. Vampires, we learn, are obsessive counters and cannot resist a good half-hitch or bowline. In any other film, this might have been interesting. Here? No.

Meanwhile, Jason Scott Lee plays a Priest With A Past. Is that past explained? Maybe. I don't know. I don't care. He mopes around, cutting off heads and has a flashback with a famous actor in a cameo.

The film doesn't so much conclude as gives up. There is a sequel, you see, in which I can discover the fate of Billy Idol and whatsherface, although Billy Idol becomes Rutger Hauer, apparently. Oh, that this day should fly by so I can revel in its majesty.
 
BONUS: 'Dracula III: Legacy' [2005]

I can't believe I'm doing this to myself, but here we are with the (hopefully) final installment of the 'Dracula' franchise. Jason Scott Lee returns as the Moody Priest, who quickly becomes Moody Ex-Priest in another scene with a cameo by a famous actor. He then goes off with That Guy That Survived The Previous Movie to hunt down Dracula and save That Girl That Guy Loves.

While 'Dracula II: Ascension' was mildly irritating, 'Dracula III: Legacy' is full-blown annoying. Despite letting the actors breathe by having them be outside for a lot of the time, this film has very few, if any, redeeming factors. More heads are severed and there's a bizarre sequence featuring a circus. Is there a vampire stilt-walker who gets one of her stilts stuck in a drain, which then snaps and impales her? Yes, actually, there is. That gives you a measure of what this film is capable of.

Dracula has regenerated again in the form of Rutger Hauer, although it's hardly worth the effort. Hauer doesn't appear until 65 mins into this 90 min film. You could probably get 10 minutes max screentime with Hauer, if you spliced his scenes together. Nice work if you can get it.

The film ends with the worst of all cliched climaxes, but seems unsure whether the audience 'gets it'. Thus, we're subjected to an onscreen quote to hammer home the point. I probably did lose some brain cells while watching this film, but I'm not that stupid. Then again, I did watch all three of the films, so maybe I should check: Person, Man, Woman, Camera, TV. OK, we're good.
 
Next up: The Mummy films.
  1. The Mummy (Universal)
  2. The Mummy's Hand
  3. The Mummy's Tomb
  4. The Mummy's Ghost
  5. Curse of the Mummy
  6. Abbott & Costello meet the Mummy
  7. The Mummy (Hammer)
  8. Curse of the Mummy's Tomb
  9. The Mummy's Shroud
  10. Blood from the Mummy's Tomb
  11. The Mummy (Brendan Fraser)
  12. The Mummy Returns
  13. Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
  14. The Mummy (Tom Cruise)
For my bonus films, I'll continue to catch up on Dracula pictures (damn, there are a lot of them), intermingled with various other Mummy films, including all 5 (can you believe that number?) Scorpion King films.

Apart from the 3 Brendan Fraser films, all of these are first-timers for me.
 
Curse-of-the-Mummy-1970.png


If by 'Curse of the Mummy', you are referring to the 1970 'Mystery and Imagination' ITV British TV movie, then that's really quite good. I improbably saw it in a cinema in 2013.
 
TM2YC said:
Curse-of-the-Mummy-1970.png


If by 'Curse of the Mummy', you are referring to the 1970 'Mystery and Imagination' ITV British TV movie, then that's really quite good. I improbably saw it in a cinema in 2013.
Click to expand...

No, I screwed up. Meant Universal’s Mummy’s Curse. Though I’ll look your suggestion up, cheers.
 
Garp said:
For my bonus films, I'll continue to catch up on Dracula pictures (damn, there are a lot of them), intermingled with various other Mummy films, including all 5 (can you believe that number?) Scorpion King films.
Click to expand...

Ah the Scorpion King; the true curse of the mummy.
 
BONUS: 'Blood of Dracula' [1957]

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" Johnny Rotten quipped at the end of the Sex Pistols last US concert. It was the same sort of response I felt after watching the falsely-advertised 'Blood of Dracula'.

Nancy (Sandra Harrison) is packed off to boarding school soon after her mother dies and her father remarries six weeks later. This surly ball of fury is swept up under the wing of Miss Branding (Louise Lewis), the science teacher, who has a plan to utilise the chemicals that naturally occur within the human body as a new source of power. Firebrand Nancy is the perfect subject, with disastrous results.

There's not much positive stuff to say about 'Blood of Dracula', so I'll just go straight onto the negatives. Firstly, this does not feature Dracula. Yes, there is a vampire of sorts, and Dracula is name-dropped a couple of times, being the most famous vampire, but that's the only connection. This is very much a low-grade B movie - cheap, quick, aimed with laser-like focus on what the hip kids will dig in 1957. So, the girls are cute with tight sweaters, the boys have immaculate hair and there is a pop song thrown in randomly halfway through.

This scene is worth delving into in more detail. Jerry Blaine sings 'Puppy Love', complete with a choreographed dance routine with some of the boarding school girls. The song is bland and inoffensive, and though I have no idea whether Blaine had any success in the 50s and 60s as a singer, he certainly can't cut it as an actor. Anyway, the inclusion of the song makes 'Blood of Dracula' even more of a time capsule oddity. I'm unsure whether 50s kids really went for this stuff or whether they saw it as crass and cringe-worthy too.

It takes a while before there's any bloodsucking, courtesy of a transformed Nancy with terrible make-up, and her shenanigans are quickly curtailed. The last line of the film suggests that people shouldn't meddle in unnatural sciences or something, but there's probably a subtext about listening to your parents and don't hang out with boys. I don't know, I had tuned out long before. Even at only 68 minutes, it felt like a complete waste of my time.
 
BONUS: 'Dracula' [1979]

I watched this film a few weeks ago online then immediately ordered the Shout! Factory blu-ray in order to see it again in its original color palette. Director John Badham desaturated the film when it was re-released, giving it almost a black-and-white tone. It's effective enough but I personally prefer the warmer, more natural colors of the original.

Frank Langella plays the Count as an intense, romantic figure; I'd have to study it again to check whether he ever blinks. He's confident, dashing but can be appropriately scathing when necessary. The film wastes no time with a backstory, beginning with Dracula's voyage to England onboard the doomed ship. Some other liberties are taken with characters - Jonathan Harker is engaged to Lucy, and Mina is a Van Helsing - but it works, just.

When you pay to have Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing, I suppose you'd want to get your money's worth. Olivier dominates the second half of the film, to the detriment of Langella, and though he is naturally good, he appears too old and frail to take on the job of vampire-hunting. British character actor Tony Haygarth excels as bug-eating Renfield, and Sylvester McCoy makes a mostly line-free appearance. Kate Nelligan (as Lucy) bests Jan Francis (as Mina) but admittedly has more to work with. Donald Pleasence eats his way through his role and seems to be enjoying himself.

The film looks great, from the ships to the gothic castle, location work and everything in between. It has a Hammer feel in places, risking melodrama and campness particularly during the romantic scenes, but it's hugely entertaining. I might even go out on a limb and say it could be my favourite version so far. I can see this joining 'House on Haunted Hill' in being a Halloween staple for me.
 
'The Mummy' [1932]

Boris Karloff kicks off this latest franchise, putting his other-worldly looks to good use as a reincarnated mummy. The story is very simple - an inept archaeologist recites the scared words needed to resurrect the mummy, who seeks out his lost-love. Karloff spends most of the film sans bandages, but is impressive nonetheless. Director Karl Freund must have loved the shot of Karloff staring directly into the camera with glowing eyes - and rightfully so - as he uses it several times to great effect.

The film does well conjuring the feel of Egypt on a soundstage, and Karloff's make-up is terrific. Zita Johann (of the huge eyes) starts well as a no-nonsense gal; her hypnotized performance later on is less interesting, and other actors are so-so but of the time. Being a pre-code film, Zita gets to show more skin than expected, before the mummy's dusty demise. Overall, I enjoyed it less than other Universal movies, such as Dracula, Frankenstein & the Wolfman, but I'm curious to discover where this series goes next.
 
BONUS: 'The Pharoah's Curse' [1957]

Sometimes bad movies can be a whole lot of fun. This isn't one of those occasions. 'The Pharaoh's Curse' is a run-of-the-mill monster movie where people run around a cave, get separated and get killed. Here, the monster isn't actually a mummy but the soul of a pharaoh who inhabits some poor sod's body, causing him to age rapidly. The make-up isn't that bad, even to the point of having one of his arms being pulled off.

Location work looks suspiciously more Californian than Egyptian and the tomb sets are poor. The acting is standard 50s B-Movie fare and the story so mediocre I fell asleep frequently. Possibly worth it to see the beautiful Ziva Rodann as a mysterious woman of the desert, but probably not.
 
BONUS: 'Blood of Dracula's Castle' [1967]

John Carradine stars in this 1967 budget  horror flick which features Dracula, although that is not the role he takes, surprisingly. Carradine instead plays the butler to the Count & Countess Dracula who have survived 300 years by drinking young girls' blood. They have succumbed to 1960s modern living, becoming a well-off couple in their 50s, having a blood cocktail hour that's supplied via syringe rather than fangs. Their idyllic lifestyle is thrown into disarray when a hip young couple inherit their castle and want them out.

This film starts off by pulling out all the stops and letting you know exactly what you're in for with a groovy theme tune. There are girls in bikinis, miniskirts, and the main couple are a model and her photographer fiance. This ain't no movie for squares, Daddy-o. As such, it doesn't take itself too seriously and is all the more fun for that.

Alexander D'Arcy and Paula Raymond play the vampiric couple to perfection. There's a definite Addams Family vibe to their performance; Alexander looks a little like Raul Julia, strangely, though Paula is more like a gothic Tammy Faye Bakker. As well as their butler, they are joined by an Igor-type called Mango (this may be an in-joke I didn't get; seemed such a weird and random name) and a psychopath called Johnny (Robert Dix) who may be a werewolf but did not become one in the version I saw. Dix is probably the best actor here, suitably blase about his killing spree.

The castle seemed too good to be set for such a low budget film, and it is indeed real - the Shea's Castle in California. However the dungeon set is empty and bland, looking more like someone's unfinished basement. Scares are non-existent although they try to instill some suspense by adding a couple of bemused rats at the feet of the girls chained to the dungeon walls. It's a wonderfully silly scene and encapsulates the film quite nicely.

The Count & Countess get their comeuppance in the worst and cheapest way possible, with all the effects off-screen narrated by witnesses. But do I feel cheated? I do not. I was in the right frame of mind for something wonderfully cheap, ridiculous and as scary as an episode of the Groovie Ghoulies. I got my money's worth, goddammit.
 
'The Mummy's Hand' [1940]

'The Mummy's Hand' continues the story from the 1932 original, with some deviations. First off, Boris Karloff doesn't reprise his role - or, at least, mostly doesn't. The film recaps the original, utilizing shots of Karloff with either his back turned or face obscured, spliced in with new shots of Tom Tyler as Kharis. Also, instead of a scared scroll, it's a bunch of boiled tana leaves that brings the Mummy to life, which adds a bit of foreshadowing to the proceedings ("He must never have more than 9 leaves, do you hear, or else he'll become a deadly monster!")

The first 15 minutes are great and a lesson in script-writing brevity. We have the flashback to get us up to speed, we're given forewarning of the dangers to come, we know the villain and his motive, we meet the heroes and are shown their call to action. It's not that the rest of the film is all downhill from here, but it doesn't quite match it afterwards.

One problem is that there is one too many comic relief characters. Our hero's sidekick is a wise-cracking Brooklynite, but then there is a lengthy couple of scenes introducing the love interest's father - a doddering magician - which tries your patience somewhat. Things speed up when they all reach the desert and start excavating, but our anti-hero doesn't make an appearance until 45 minutes into a 67 minute film. Colleagues start getting bumped off, of course, much to the apparent indifference of our heroes who casually leave corpses around, drink & have fun still looking for treasure all the while.

The make-up is about as good as the original, although Tyler affects more of a zombie-like shuffle than the usual stiff gait of a mummy. The sets look good too, especially the tomb used in the finale. The camera pans out to show how large an area they have decorated, then does virtually nothing with it - a missed opportunity. George Zucco as the evil professor wins top honors acting-wise.

'The Mummy's Hand' gets a lot right and makes an adequate job of continuing the story from the original. Less comic relief and more Mummy would have made this a real treasure.
 
BONUS: 'Curse of the Mummy' [1970]

This TV adaptation of a Bram Stoker story gave me nostalgia chills. Although even I'm not old enough to remember when this was first shown, I vividly recall these types of one-off TV plays gracing my screen as a youth. 'Curse of the Mummy' is very much in the vein of 'Tales of the Unexpected', a show that featured spooky tales with a twist, and it's stagey, slightly wobbly presentation is very much of its time (a boom mike can clearly be seen at one point).

The story concerns an old collector (Graham Crowden) of Egyptian artifacts who is seemingly being haunted by some mysterious 'miasma' with claws. Patrick Mower stars as the doctor trying to unravel the mystery, whilst wooing the old man's daughter, Isobel Black. Things get even more twisted when the old man's colleague (Donald Churchill) turns up, literally with a key to unlock more of the puzzle.

The first revelation is how good Patrick Mower was in this. I remember him as an arrogant, somewhat slimy also-ran actor, appearing as a guest star in some long-running TV show or another. But here, he actually gets to show some acting chops, and it's none too bad at that. Crowden is a delight as the eccentric collector, and Black is necessarily wan and evasive. Some of the special effects took me right back to my Dr. Who days (Tom Baker was my Time Lord) and that's no bad thing either.

It's spooky enough, teasing out more clues to the mystery, until the final twist is revealed - more satisfying than revelatory but well done nonetheless. If I had seen this as a child, I would have been half behind a sofa cushion the entire time.
 
BONUS: 'Countess Dracula' [1971]

Fool me twice, shame on me. Here we have another film with 'Dracula' in the title that has nothing to do with vampires, let alone Dracula himself (or, in this case, herself). Instead this Hammer 'horror' features a vain old widow who discovers she can be revitalized to her ravishing youth by the blood of young female virgins. With nary a fang in sight, she starts offing chambermaids, wandering gypsies and a prostitute (by mistake), bathing in their blood.

The film becomes more of a farce in places, albeit a non-comedic one, as she tries to pass herself off as her own daughter until the spell wears off and she reappears as her true self. The old age make-up is as wrinkly, grey and dry as you would expect but some of the sets are good, in typical Hammer style.

This is a scare-free, tedious film, seemingly made for pubescent boys who want to catch a glimpse of a nipple, some splashes of blood or, in some cases, a nipple with splashes of blood. Some suspense is injected when the widow's actual daughter shows up, but Hammer wimps out on having a more dramatic climax between the two and opts instead for the dullest ending imaginable. The very last lines of the film namecheck Dracula, but it's too late; you've been duped, sucker.
 
BONUS: 'Lake of Dracula' [1971]

After having spent a year watching kaiju films, it was like seeing an old friend when the Toho logo popped up at the start of 'Lake of Dracula'. Shin Kishida takes on the famous role, transplanting the Transylvanian count in Japan.

There's the usual Toho trope of a love triangle, though more understated here. A young girl is haunted by a nightmare she had as a child, featuring a dead woman and a vampire. Now in her 20s, she is in love with the same Doctor as her sister, living by a lake. When a coffin is delivered to one of her neighbors, neither the locals nor pet dogs are safe.

The story is simple but still takes a hefty dose of exposition in the third act to truly figure out what is going on. No matter, the atmosphere is the selling point here. There are dusty old mansions, figures lurking in the shadows, jump scares and some gore to be had. Drac's  demise is the most prolonged and gruesome I've yet come across and worth the wait to get there.

'Lake of Dracula' isn't high art but does add something to the genre, even if a lot of that is the locale. It's appropriately spooky with some good effects, giving Hammer a run for their money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom