If you think this is the best Dracula movie, bless you. It's a charming opinion. Objectively, though, the production is far too flawed to crown an unbiased "best of" list. Its visual attractiveness might veil it, but the film's lacking budget caused fundamental cracks that keep it from reaching height.
Cushing, IMO, is the best of all the Van Helsings put on film. The right age and vitality to convince as both, sage and monster hunter, and the right charisma to root for such a laconic and stiff loner. That aside, it's a rather shallow characterization. We learn next to nothing about his background or motivation. Same is true for all other characters. While the movie has the same pretty atmosphere as most Hammer productions, the director only barely commits to the horror genre. We never linger on any creepy scenes except for one cemetery and Christopher Lee's performances, which are fairly efficient. But all locations are too bright and none of the victims are ever sufficiently terrified. Maybe to make up for that, the staking scenes are overly bloody. As a *horror* film, though, "Dracula" is mediocre, at best. I'd even say it's disappointing, probably due to the strong financial constraints.
Worst of all are the witless plot changes: Someone was given the task to rewrite the story so that it might match the very limited budget. That person did not care to make sure that the original events logically connect to the changes. I'll provide 2 examples: 1) In the movie Jonathan Harker visits Dracula's castle, which is not far (!) from his hometown (less than a night's ride in a fast carriage!). As he introduces himself to the count we are given the impression that he is clueless to his evil nature. Just as it was the case in Stoker's novel. So, we're not very surprised, when Harker pulls a big photo of his fiance from his luggage and proudly displays it to Dracula, mentioning her full name and giving all the details that one might require if searching for someone. Relatively normal behavior, given everything we know at that point in the movie, indicating that this poor fellow doesn't suspect evil. But... Immediately after the count leaves his room, Harker pulls out his diary and enters "[...] with God's help I will forever end this man's reign of terror." As we learn just a little time later, Harker already knew that Dracula was a vampire and was basically sent by Van Helsing to destroy him. He knew of his supernatural powers and that he drank the blood of his victims, turning them into monsters. All of these details are rewrites, differing from the novel. Now, how likely is it that Harker would place a big photo of his fiance inside the home of a bloodsucking devil and then tell him her name? Considering his knowledge and that she lives less than a 24 hour ride away, it's utterly ridiculous. On top of that, it's shocking how badly prepared he was, despite being sent by an expert on vampires. Everything that happens to him mostly makes sense in the context of the novel, but when placed within the rewritten script of this movie, it's just raising questions and more eye-brows than I have available. I physically strained to raise more.
2) After Van Helsing has to stake Harker, he visits his fiance, Lucy, and her relatives, to bring the bad news. They know nothing of vampires but Lucy has already been bitten, causing her family to ask for the doctor's help. Van Helsing, at this point, is hellbent on destroying the murderous count and all that is keeping him from trying is that he doesn't know where to find him. Isn't it extremely convenient then, that he discovers that the vampire will be visiting Lucy the very next night?! Well...yes...but no! Instead Helsing gives the family some instructions on how to prepare the victim's room and goes home, announcing to return in the morning, just as he did in the novel. The family prepares the room, then disappears, only leaving behind a gullible maid who can easily be convinced by the hypnotized victim to remove all of the preparations. Dracula enters. Lucy dies. Family mourns. Helsing mopes. I facepalm. Brows lift off. All of that made sense in the novel, where Helsing just acted on theories he gained from books. He had never dealt with vampires before and was forced to educate himself on their powers as the story progressed. He didn't have a reason for revenge or solid knowledge on how to hunt blood sucking monsters, but just on how to potentially ward them off. Helsing in this movie doesn't have these excuses. His knowledge was obviously sufficient to justify sending a single man into Dracula's castle. He had every reason and power to stay at Lucy's home and wait to engage the man that caused his friend's death...and now threatened to kill his fiance. The movie never explains Helsing's lack of action. It just imitates the novel, but adds enough incoherent changes to annihilate its inherent logic.
Other Dracula movies have successfully attempted to tell a more coherent version of the story. At least some of them were aided by bigger budgets. All of them lacked Cushing.
Cushing, IMO, is the best of all the Van Helsings put on film. The right age and vitality to convince as both, sage and monster hunter, and the right charisma to root for such a laconic and stiff loner. That aside, it's a rather shallow characterization. We learn next to nothing about his background or motivation. Same is true for all other characters. While the movie has the same pretty atmosphere as most Hammer productions, the director only barely commits to the horror genre. We never linger on any creepy scenes except for one cemetery and Christopher Lee's performances, which are fairly efficient. But all locations are too bright and none of the victims are ever sufficiently terrified. Maybe to make up for that, the staking scenes are overly bloody. As a *horror* film, though, "Dracula" is mediocre, at best. I'd even say it's disappointing, probably due to the strong financial constraints.
Worst of all are the witless plot changes: Someone was given the task to rewrite the story so that it might match the very limited budget. That person did not care to make sure that the original events logically connect to the changes. I'll provide 2 examples: 1) In the movie Jonathan Harker visits Dracula's castle, which is not far (!) from his hometown (less than a night's ride in a fast carriage!). As he introduces himself to the count we are given the impression that he is clueless to his evil nature. Just as it was the case in Stoker's novel. So, we're not very surprised, when Harker pulls a big photo of his fiance from his luggage and proudly displays it to Dracula, mentioning her full name and giving all the details that one might require if searching for someone. Relatively normal behavior, given everything we know at that point in the movie, indicating that this poor fellow doesn't suspect evil. But... Immediately after the count leaves his room, Harker pulls out his diary and enters "[...] with God's help I will forever end this man's reign of terror." As we learn just a little time later, Harker already knew that Dracula was a vampire and was basically sent by Van Helsing to destroy him. He knew of his supernatural powers and that he drank the blood of his victims, turning them into monsters. All of these details are rewrites, differing from the novel. Now, how likely is it that Harker would place a big photo of his fiance inside the home of a bloodsucking devil and then tell him her name? Considering his knowledge and that she lives less than a 24 hour ride away, it's utterly ridiculous. On top of that, it's shocking how badly prepared he was, despite being sent by an expert on vampires. Everything that happens to him mostly makes sense in the context of the novel, but when placed within the rewritten script of this movie, it's just raising questions and more eye-brows than I have available. I physically strained to raise more.
2) After Van Helsing has to stake Harker, he visits his fiance, Lucy, and her relatives, to bring the bad news. They know nothing of vampires but Lucy has already been bitten, causing her family to ask for the doctor's help. Van Helsing, at this point, is hellbent on destroying the murderous count and all that is keeping him from trying is that he doesn't know where to find him. Isn't it extremely convenient then, that he discovers that the vampire will be visiting Lucy the very next night?! Well...yes...but no! Instead Helsing gives the family some instructions on how to prepare the victim's room and goes home, announcing to return in the morning, just as he did in the novel. The family prepares the room, then disappears, only leaving behind a gullible maid who can easily be convinced by the hypnotized victim to remove all of the preparations. Dracula enters. Lucy dies. Family mourns. Helsing mopes. I facepalm. Brows lift off. All of that made sense in the novel, where Helsing just acted on theories he gained from books. He had never dealt with vampires before and was forced to educate himself on their powers as the story progressed. He didn't have a reason for revenge or solid knowledge on how to hunt blood sucking monsters, but just on how to potentially ward them off. Helsing in this movie doesn't have these excuses. His knowledge was obviously sufficient to justify sending a single man into Dracula's castle. He had every reason and power to stay at Lucy's home and wait to engage the man that caused his friend's death...and now threatened to kill his fiance. The movie never explains Helsing's lack of action. It just imitates the novel, but adds enough incoherent changes to annihilate its inherent logic.
Other Dracula movies have successfully attempted to tell a more coherent version of the story. At least some of them were aided by bigger budgets. All of them lacked Cushing.