Also known as: Rasputin (Spain) Release Date: March 6th, 1966 (UK) Directed by: Don Sharp Written by: Anthony Hinds Music by: Don Banks Cast: Christopher Lee, Barbara Shelley, Francis Matthews, Richard Pasco, Suzan Farmer, Joss Ackland
Seven Arts Productions, Hammer Films, 91 Minutes
“When I go to confession I don’t offer God small sins, petty squabbles, jealousies… I offer him sins worth forgiving!” – Grigori Rasputin
This might not be Christopher Lee’s best film but it is certainly one of his greatest performances of all-time and the greatest out of all the Hammer Films pictures he starred in.
The movie is a very loose biopic about Grigori Rasputin, a man whose legend has grown well beyond reality. Still, the guy was damn interesting and gained control over some powerful, influential people.
Also, his death is pretty legendary but I’m not going to rehash all the details about the man and his death. Go to Wikipedia for that, if you’re unfamiliar with it.
This film doesn’t cover Rasputin’s whole life, it just covers the end of it. It essentially starts with some character building and context to setup who he is and then immediately gets into how he “mesmerized” an influential Russian family, causing some serious harm to the people trapped in the gravitational pull of his orbit.
The film also eventually gets to his death. However, being that this was a superb picture for Hammer, I’m actually kind of shocked that they didn’t find a way to resurrect the madman for a series of sequels that would be a lot more horror heavy. It definitely feels like it was a missed opportunity. Plus, I would’ve liked to have seen what a director like Terence Fisher could’ve done had he gotten a crack at the Hammer version of the Rasputin character.
This is well acted and honestly, it really stands out in that regard, compared to other Hammer movies of the time.
Rasputin: The Mad Monk is one of the best motion pictures that Hammer ever made and I feel like it’s sort of been forgotten, as people tend to gravitate more towards the films that feature Dracula, Frankenstein and vampires in general.
Rating: 8/10 Pairs well with: other Hammer horror films with Christopher Lee.
I have to break this into two parts, as there are eight films to review.
Christopher Lee was the greatest actor to ever play Dracula. In fact, he probably also has the most longevity as the character since he played him in seven films for Hammer over what spanned about two decades.
Lee has since gone on to get more notoriety in films outside of horror after playing Saruman in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films. He also played Count Dooku in the Star Wars prequels. But before all that, he was the king of horror and this series featured him at his most iconic and memorable.
Horror of Dracula (1958):
Also known as: Dracula Release Date: May 8th, 1958 (UK) Directed by: Terence Fisher Written by: Jimmy Sangster Based on:Dracula by Bram Stoker Music by: James Bernard Cast: Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling
Hammer Film Productions, Rank Organization, Universal International, 82 Minutes
In the first film, we get a retelling of the classic Bram Stoker tale. Some of the characters are the same but the events differ greatly.
Jonathan Harker arrives at Dracula’s castle. However, in this version, he knows who Dracula is and he is there to destroy him. Before he gets that chance, he ends up a vampire himself. This brings in Van Helsing. In this series he is played by Christopher Lee’s constant co-star and lifelong best friend, Peter Cushing.
Cushing is most famous as Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. So this film features two great Star Wars villains as leads. The film also features Michael Gough, who was best known in more modern times as Alfred in the Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher Batman films that were released between 1989 and 1997.
As a film, this installment is the best in the series. It is some of director Terence Fisher’s best work. It has a great pace, a great atmosphere and the cinematography was total Hammer Horror style, which would become synonymous with the studio and many other studios that tried to knock it off and mimic Hammer’s success. Granted, the style was used in The Curse of Frankenstein a year prior but Fisher’s implementation (and probably invention) of the style was really at its best in these two films.
This movie is greatly acted, greatly directed and the special effects for the late 1950s are pretty damned amazing. Taking into account the limited techniques of that era, the Dracula death scene is pretty cool to watch and I can see where at that time, it would have been awe-inspiring and cutting edge. Hell, it is way more effective than the overabundance of CGI that we get now and it also looked more realistic because what you see on screen was actually physically on the set.
The Brides of Dracula (1960):
Release Date: July 7th, 1960 (UK) Directed by: Terence Fisher Written by: Jimmy Sangster, Peter Bryan, Edward Percy, Anthony Hinds Based on:Dracula by Bram Stoker Music by: Malcolm Williamson Cast: Peter Cushing, Martita Hunt, Yvonne Monlaur, David Peel, Michael Ripper
Hammer Film Productions, Universal International, 85 Minutes
One could argue that this film should be omitted as Christopher Lee is not in it and neither is Dracula.
Peter Cushing returns however, as Van Helsing and this fleshes out his story more, which is good considering that a version of his character doesn’t return to the series until the final two films. Also, this film is directed by Terence Fisher. Regardless of those who don’t consider it part of the series, it is, at the very least, a spiritual successor to Horror of Dracula.
This film follows Baron Meinster (played by David Peel), who is a disciple of Count Dracula. The plot revolves around a girl who comes to town and tickles the Baron’s fancy. However, the Baron has an overbearing mother who literally has him chained up. He is said to be insane. The girl, Marianne, feels for the Baron and grows a bond with him. One thing leads to another, a girl winds up dead and Van Helsing, who just so happens to be in the right place at the right time, suspects vampirism.
This is a pretty good film and it is consistent with Terence Fisher’s great catalog of classic horror gems. Sure, Lee doesn’t reprise his role as Count Dracula but the story is engaging enough to keep one interested and Cushing is good enough to keep any film afloat – even some of the shittier horror films he found himself in throughout the years. This is not one of those shitty films, however.
Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966):
Release Date: January 9th, 1966 (UK) Directed by: Terence Fisher Written by: Jimmy Sangster, Anthony Hinds Based on:Dracula by Bram Stoker Music by: James Bernard Cast: Christopher Lee, Barbara Shelley, Thorley Walters, Francis Matthews
Hammer Film Productions, Seven Arts, Warner-Pathé Distributors, 20th Century Fox, 90 Minutes
Finally, after an eight year hiatus, Christopher Lee is back as Dracula! And he would remain so for the rest of this iconic series! Unfortunately, Peter Cushing checked out and wouldn’t return until the seventh film in the series Dracula A.D. 1972.
This is my favorite chapter in the series. I find the story to be the most engaging and interesting of all the Hammer Dracula movies. Weirdly, Dracula doesn’t even have a line of dialogue in this film other than a few grunts and noises and intense stares. Truthfully, he doesn’t need words, as his motivations are pretty clear and it actually makes him more frightening and animalistic in this movie. Christopher Lee has a way of telling a story with his eyes and body language and even without words, Dracula felt more like the apex predator that he is in this film than any other Dracula film in history.
This installment is also directed by Terence Fisher and plays like the final part of his Dracula trilogy – encompassing this film and the two before it. This would be his last movie in the series and frankly, after this film, the quality started to decline. Granted, every film was still a positive experience except for the final one.
The plot in this film deals with four Londoners who end up in the Carpathian Mountains on vacation and are warned to stay away from the evil castle on the nearby mountain. Of course, they end up in the castle and are used to resurrect Dracula. The Dracula regeneration scene is pretty spectacular.
This is also the first film in the series to feature a bad ass religious figure taking on the evil vampire lord. They needed someone to fill that Van Helsing spot in the film, so this started the trend of having religious figures combating Count Dracula. This film also uses the formula the best, as Andrew Keir’s Father Sandor was like a kick ass Santa Clause with a high-powered rifle.
Dracula Has Risen From the Grave (1968):
Release Date: November 7th, 1968 (UK) Directed by: Freddie Francis Written by: Anthony Hinds Based on:Dracula by Bram Stoker Music by: James Bernard Cast: Christopher Lee, Rupert Davies, Veronica Carlson, Barbara Ewing, Michael Ripper
Hammer Film Productions, Seven Arts, Warner-Pathé Distributors, Warner Bros., 92 Minutes
Man, I really enjoy this film too. It brings back the religious protagonist. In this film he is Monsignor Ernest Muller. He is less effective than Father Sandor in the previous chapter and is actually the catalyst that unleashes Dracula, even though he doesn’t realize it.
This film also brought in another protagonist, one who is dating the niece of the Monsignor. This character was more interesting as he was a self-professed atheist that got under the skin of the religious know-it-all. In fact, I feel like they used the dichotomy between the religious man and the non-religious man to make a commentary on the subject within the scenes of this film.
As things would go, Dracula wants the girl, the boyfriend must protect the girl and conflict ensues. While this isn’t the best in the series, the plot is fresh and the series isn’t falling victim to redundancy at this point.
Lastly, the Dracula death scene in this film is phenomenal and beautifully shot; props to the director, Freddie Francis.
Release Date: October 18th, 1964 (UK) Directed by: Terence Fisher Written by: John Gilling Music by: James Bernard Cast: Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Richard Pasco, Barbara Shelley, Michael Goodliffe
Hammer Film Productions, Columbia Pictures, 83 Minutes
Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing starred alongside each other in over twenty movies. When it comes to watching old school horror pictures, especially from Hammer, it is hard to see one without seeing the other. Many films they did together are classics. Then there are some that aren’t. This film, historically speaking, probably falls somewhere in the middle, as far as popular opinion goes. Personally, I love The Gorgon and think it is one of the best Lee-Cushing films not involving Dracula or Frankenstein.
If you have seen a Hammer horror film before, you probably know what to expect. There really are no surprises here. It is consistent visually with their late 50s/early 60s gothic horror style. In fact, it is directed by Terence Fisher who was Hammer’s premier director and the man who helmed most of Hammer’s classics.
The story is different than other Hammer films, as the monster in this one is something out of the ordinary. Well, if the title is any indicator, the monster is a gorgon: an entity like Medusa from Greek mythology. She has snakes for hair, lives in a dark abandoned castle and can turn anyone into stone with her gaze. The village around the castle is alerted to something being strangely amiss when the body of a murdered girl is discovered to be rock solid. This causes the doctors, scientists and other folks around to get involved in solving the mystery.
What makes this film interesting, is that Cushing and Lee are sort of playing a role reversal in this film. Usually, Cushing is the good and pure hero – the Van Helsing type, while Lee is either the monster or some other type of morally depraved presence. Lee is the straight-laced hero this time, as Cushing is a more questionable character.
The role reversal and the unique monster make this picture something special in the Hammer Films catalog. And whether or not the special effects stand up to the test of time, the film still comes off as pretty creepy. It makes me wish that modern horror could accomplish something this suspenseful, without exposing the monster every five minutes and relying on jump scares for the entirety of the picture.
While this might not be as well remember as Horror of Dracula or The Curse of Frankenstein, it belongs in their company. It is certainly much better than most of the sequels spawned by those two films and they had a lot of sequels. The Gorgon is one of Hammer’s best pictures.