October Movie Reviews: Dracula 1958

Next for my October Reviews I am moving on to what is the first of a dynasty of movies.

The Dracula from 1958 would have not been a remarkable movie. Really. The pacing is slow, the script takes a number of liberties with the Stoker tale and the play as well for that matter. But it gave us Christopher Lee as the Count and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, and it was the first of many Hammer Horror films.  Hammer almost created it's own mythology of vampires and other creatures that nearly challenges the original tales.  Hammer surpass even the Universal Horror monsters in the minds of many fans, myself included.  It has been years since I have seen Dracula.  It was great to see it again with new eyes.

Dracula (1958)

Also sometimes called the "Horror of Dracula".  This is the first of many Hammer films on Dracula and starring Christopher Lee as the Count and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing.  Lee might be the quintessential Dracula, equal amounts of sinister monster and suave seducer.  He might not look like his counterpart from the book, but certainly he can pull off the menace very well.  Of the actors that have portrayed Dracula he might also be one of the best.   This movie though is also one of the greater departures from both the book and the play.  Harker is a vampire hunter working with Van Helsing.  Arthur Holmwood is here and works with Van Helsing later in the tale when his daughter, Harker's fiancée, Lucy is killed and his wife Mina is attacked.
Cushing's Van Helsing is younger than most portrayals, and more "English" but he displays such a calm resolve.  He is, if the comparison can be made, more like the Doctor.  He knows all and anticipates the Count's moves.  They are more evenly matched here than in previous films.
Christopher Lee brings a presence to the role of Dracula that was different than that of Lugosi.  Where Lugosi was a suave monster, Christopher Lee's Dracula is a barely contained beast.  Dressed in the veneer of a man, you know he is but one bad moment away from ripping your throat out.

This version of Dracula comes back from the dead more often than any other Dracula; which is good, cause Dracula in this movies goes down rather easily.  Van Helsing uses two candle sticks to form a cross and that keeps the count at bay.

Despite all of that, there is something here.  Something that shows the promise of the future Hammer films, not just the Dracula ones.

Dracula: B/X Companion

The new B/X Companion Rules give us the Greater Undead including a Greater Vampire.  This is awesome since it was also something I had done back when my Expert Set was still new.  Of all the Greater Vampires out there, what one is greater than Dracula himself?
Since I have been watching all the movies I figured now is a good time to see if my B/X skills are still good.

Dracula
Greater Vampire*
Armor Class: 0
Hit Dice: 18*** (135 hp)
Move: 150', 180' Flying
Attacks: 2 (or 3)
Damage: 1-10 + Special / 1-8 + life drain
No. Appearing: 1
Save As: Fighter 18
Morale: 12
Treasure Type: G+H (in lair only x2)
Alignment: Chaotic
XP: 6,000

Dracula is one of the most powerful of the greater Undead.  In life he was a great warrior and now in undeath he is even stronger.  Dracula can attack with claws doing 1-10 hit points of damage, if both claws hit, Dracula will then latch on with his fangs and drain blood from his victim equaling two energy levels.  He prefers to only drain his prey with his fangs; his claw attacks never drain life levels (though they can if he chooses).
Dracula is quite adept with a sword or spear, but prefers to use his bare hands.

If encountered in his castle he will also have 2-20 human gypsies to serve him (treat as Fighter 1) and his three vampiric brides (treat as normal vampires).   He will have double the normal treasure of his kind when encountered in his lair, but nothing on him outside of it.  He wears a ring of protection +1 with the Dracula family crest on it.

As per the Vampire, Dracula is immune to sleep, charm and hold spells.  HE may summon 10-100 rats (5-20 giant rats), 10-100 bats (3-18 giant bats) or 3-18 wolves (2-8 dire wolves).    Dracula may shapechange into a large bat or wolf, but his hit points remain unchanged.  Dracula may also regenerate 5 hit points per round as long as he has fed.

Dracula shares all the same weaknesses of other common and Greater vampires including revulsion to mirrors, holy items and garlic.  Running water will destroy him, but a stake in the heart will only immobilize him. Dracula may make a "Bend Bars/Lift Gates" check to remove the stake.  He must be beheaded.  Dracula can also move about during the daylight hours, but prefers not too since he cannot shape change.

October Movie Reviews: House of Dracula 1945

Lon Chaney Jr. returns, but not as Dracula, but as the Wolf Man.

This movie is a sequel to the House of Frankenstein and the second of the Universal "Monster Mash" movies. We have a Mad Scientist, Dracula, the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's Monster and even a hunchback. All the monsters are here and we even have an angry mob of villagers.

House of Dracula (1945)

Dracula comes to visit renowned scientist Dr. Edelmann searching for a cure to his vampirism.  At the same time Larry Talbot comes looking for a cure for his lycanthropy.    Oddly enough the two classic monsters never share any screen time.  Along the way Talbot, in a failed suicide attempt, discovers a cave where Frankenstein's monster is buried.

Dracula attempts to seduce one of Edlemann's nurses, one he had met before, so Edlemann tryies to deal with Dracula.  Dracula double crosses him and feeds him some of his own vampiric blood via the transfusion.  Edlemann later manages to kill Dracula, but the blood in his veins produces an odd Jekyll and Hyde like effect.

Edlemann, in one of his moments of clarity, manages to cure Talbot, but then also slips and kills a local.  The villagers attack while Edlemann is trying to revive the Monster.  He kills his nurse, but is shot by an now cured Talbot and the place goes down in flames with the Monster inside.

What I thought was interesting about this one was both Dracual and the Wolf Man come to Dr. Edlemann to seek a cure. Though I am certain that Dracula had other plans, Talbot I was sure was sincere.
The hunchback was a bit of a surprise.  This was not your ugly Quasimodo, but instead the attractive form of  Nina, played by Jane Adams. Whiled billed as a monster, she is more of a sympathetic victim.  Though our mad scientist, Edelmann, serves both that role and that of a Jekyll and Hyde.

Lon Chaney J.r is back where "he belongs" as the Wolf man and John Carirdine is taking a tour as the Count. I like Caridine as the count. He has the features and he acts like the nobleman that Dracula should be.  In fact in the movie poster linked here he looks a little bit like Christopher Lee.  I did enjoy seeing Dracula's top hat back.

Frankenstein's Monster is utterly wasted here and most of time he is on screen are archived footage from previous movies.  Which is interesting given his "top billing".  The Wolf man, like our hunchback, is more to be pitied than feared.

If you will pardon the pun, Universal's monsters were getting a little long in the tooth at this point.  The next movie after this one was "Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein" a completely fun movie, but so far removed from horror.

Next:  Hammer Time! (had to do it)

B/X Companion is Mine!

I had this cool plan of doing some 4E writing tonight.  A couple of things that have been stewing in the back of my head.  That is till I came home to this:

Yes that is the B/X Companion in all her glory.  The product I think I have been waiting for for close to 30 years.  Sure I have had books that have covered the same ground, and books that made this book obsolete, but somewhere, deep in my psyche there is still that 12 year old version of me wishing he could take his cleric to 15th level.  

The B/X Companion does not disappoint.  Let me just say that if this isn't exactly how it was going to be, then I'd be hard pressed to know what it would have been.  I am reading through it all now and I am purposefully NOT comparing it to the BECMI version of the Companion rules.  Maybe later, maybe even later but before this is posted.  But right now I only want to compare it to the B/X books of which is it is, well, a companion too.

The cover of course is very much part of the original scheme.  The three principle characters, the fighter and the two wizards (or maybe she is a cleric, that could be a "light" spell, though she has a torch too) stand in front of their followers.  They braved the dungeon, the wilderness and now they are ready for the next adventure.  So are we.

For those of us that grew up with the Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert sets, the Companion book feels very familiar.  The layout is similar, the flow is similar and even the art has a familiar feel.  If you own the Basic or Expert books then finding something in the Companion book is trivial.  I turned right to the character rules and took a glance at all the tables.  Yes sir they run from 15 to 36, just like promised.  Clerics still top out at 7th level spells, but eventually they get 9 of them.  Wizards still go to 9th level, and get 9 of those too.

Fighters get more attacks per round (as they should) and thieves get more abilities.

There are plenty of new spells here.  Many look like they take their inspiration from the products that came after, the Player's Handbook or the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, but nothing is an out right copy.  It does have the feel like Becker sat around one day and thought, what are some good spells and what level should they be.

There new monsters and advanced versions of some others.  The Greater Vampire nearly made me laugh out loud as I had done the exact same thing after reading and playing the Expert book for so long.  My Greater Vampire was a photocopy of Ptah from Deities and Demigods with some fangs drawn in.  I never claimed to be an artist.  Te monsters all seem to be appropriate for the levels, though a few more in the 30 HD range might have been nice, but not really needed.

The BIG additions here though are the ones that were most "advertised" back in the day. 

Running a High Level Game  is great advice for ANY edition of the game.  It gives this book the same place as say, the Epic Level Handbook for D&D 3.0 or even the Epic Tier for D&D 4.  Chances are very, very good I'll be using the B/X Companion in my next D&D 4 game in fact.

Related are running a domain and running large armies.  Battlesystem would later give us these rules for AD&D, but here they are much simpler to use.  Again, something to consider to port over to other versions of the game.

I loved the new magic items and can never get enough of those.  I also liked the part on the planes and how it is totally left up to design of the DM.  I wonder how many people out there will re-invent the Gygaxian Great Wheel for their B/X/C games?

Others have reviewed this book already and my insights won't add or subtract to those.  A particularly insightful one is by James over at Grognardia.  I concur with a lot of what he had to say, with the possible exception of his take on demi-humans and frankly I have no idea what I would have done in Becker's place as I am not fond of level limits or even demi-humans as classes.  That being said lets put this product in context.

I would have liked thicker covers to be honest. This book I am afraid will not wear so well.  I would also LOVE to have it as a PDF.  I don't bring a lot of books to the table anymore, I bring a laptop.  So can you hear me JB!  Sell me a PDF! :)

Companion to Basic/Expert Rules

Obviously this is where it works the best.  But there is something here that I don't think others have tapped into just yet.  Companion makes the Moldvay/Cook rules a complete game.  With these three books you now have a complete D&D game.  The only thing really missing is a "C1" module or maybe a BXC one.

Companion to Labyrinth Lord/Basic Fantasy

The new Becker Companion has a lot it owes to Labyrinth Lord (LL) and Basic Fantasy (BFRPG).  While maybe not directly, these two games showed that there is a market out there for "Basic" styles of play.  Both LL and BFRPG take the modern 1-20 level limit for human classes.  Companion is 15 to 36.  So some adjustments need to be made.  There are a few differences in the how each of these books calculate XP per level, and how they do spells.  But nothing so complicated that a a good DM couldn't figure out.  

Personally if I were playing a LL/BFRPG game, I'd go to 15th level and then switch over to B/X Companion. for the next levels to 36.  OR even go to 20 and use B/X Companion as a guide to levels 30 or even 36.

Frankly the homebrewiness of it all has me very excited for anyone that has decided to throw their lot in with "Basic" D&D.

The B/X Companion vs. the BECMI Companion

Ok, I know I said above I wasn't going to do this, but after re-reading James's post over at Grognardia and his post on the Mentzer Companion I felt it was worth a look.

Now I am no expert on the Mentzer era of the rules.  I had moved to AD&D by the time they were out and I never owned them.  I picked up the Rules Cyclopedia a while back and got all the BECMI boxes on PDF back when Wizards sold them on DriveThru.

Both Companions cover similar ground.  The spell progressions and XP look about the same (given that they use simple math, no surprise).   The BECMI Companion only goes to 25th level, not 36 like the B/X Companion. The BECMI Companion generally speaking has more detail than the B/X one, but that is not really a nitpick since the abstraction of the rules in B/X is greater to allow more with less; just like the B/X books it was modeled after.  

Final Tally

I like this book. A lot.  It makes me want to pull out my ratty Basic and Expert books and play Moldvay/Cook era Basic D&D again.   In the mean time, I think I'll just have to satisfy myself with converting some D&D 3.0 or 4e characters over to Companion,  just for the fun of it.

One thing that did disappoint me though was the lack of the OGL.  There is a lot of really cool stuff here and it could be shared.  I suppose that something like this, talking to Johnathan Becker is always the best the way to go.  

October Movie Reviews: Son of Dracula 1943

Dracula also had a son it seems. Fitting title (or was it contrived that way) for the son of the Man of Thousand Faces who also almost was Dracula.

With this movie I think we are getting into what most people think of as the Universal Monsters. Lon Chaney Jr., more modern settings and an American setting.  Plus we are getting into that Golden Age of Hollywood, with the stars and the glamor and, in the case of this film, some more special effects.
This is the third movie of Universal's "Dracula Trilogy" and it is also something of a transitional piece.

Son of Dracula (1943)
The setting for this film is New Orleans, a full 40 years before anyone else will associate it with vampires.  Hungarian Count "Alucard" arrives invited by one of the daughters of a plantation owner.  I am not 100%, but nearly so that is the very first time we see the Alucard alias.  Something that will be later used all over the place.   Alucard seduces Katherine Caldwell, the daughter, when they had met previously in Hungary.  Soon her father dies, leaving her the plantation Dark Oaks and her and Alucard are quickly married; much to the chagrin of her fiancée and sister.

Her distraught fiancée Frank confronts them and shoots Alucard, only for the bullets to pass through him and kill Kate instead.  He runs to Dr. Brewster's home, a family friend, and admits he killed Kate.  Dr. Brewster goes to Dark Oaks to see a seemingly alive, but very pale, Kate.  Alucard as the new "Master of Dark Oaks" warns the Dr. off  saying the he and his new wife wish to left alone.
Dr. Brewster, noticing the Dracula/Alucard parallels contacts Hungarian Professor Lazlo, who comes to Brewster with the suspicion of vampirism already formed in his mind.  The police head out to Dark Oaks during the day where they find Kate's dead body and lock up Frank.
Kate visits Frank in his cell and Alucard visits Brewster and Lazlo.  Kate convinces Frank that the only way they can be together is to destroy "Dracula".  She helps him escape, while the two men of science fight Alucard.
Frank  heads out to the Dark Oaks plantation ahead of Brewster, Lazlo and the police.  He manages to destroy Alucard's coffin and leaves Alucard to burn in the morning sun.  He then rushes to where Kate is.  When everyone else has caught up to him we see Kate's coffin ablaze as well.

Ok despite a somewhat simple story there is a lot going on here.
First this is Lon Chaney's first (and only) outing as the Count.  I was impressed with his ability to look very different here, he certainly had some of his own father's skills.  But I have so associated him with Larry Talbot and the Wolfman that it was hard to see him as Dracula.  He just didn't seem European enough.  Yes, I mentioned that in the book Dracula took great pains not to sound Transylvania, but here Dracula sounds like he was the Mid West.  It wasn't just the accent; he didn't seem royal, he didn't sound like Dracula.
And that is the other thing.  Was this supposed to be Dracula or his son Alucard.  The movie is a tad ambiguous, but I felt for certain that he was supposed to be the true Count.  I think the "Son of" appellation here was more due to Universal and due to the actor himself.  Lon Chaney Jr. after all was the son of the man that almost got the role of Dracula in the 1931 film.
We got more special effects this time than the last two films combined.  Lots of Dracula turning into and from a bat here, an effect that would be used to great effect (and profound impact on my young mind) in the later "Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein".  While that one is notable, there was the less dramatic, but no less cool, Dracula and Kate turning into and from mist or fog.
I mentioned above that this is a transitional movie for Universal. Transitional in that we are now moving farther away from the source materials (Dracula and Frankenstein novels) and more into modern re-tellings.  For the first time Dracula is setting foot on American soil (and is given good reasons for it in the plot).  It is also the last of the proper "Dracula" films before moving onto the "Monster Mash" films that Universal became known for.  "House of Dracula", the next Dracula film on my list, features Dracula, the Wolf Man, Frankenstein, and even a hunchback and mad scientist.

We are missing a Van Helsing in this one, mostly due to it begin modern (1940s) times, but we do have Dr. Brewster in the obiligator Seward role and Prof. Lazlo as our ersatz Van Helsing.  Prof. Lazlo was actually quite an interesting character and would make for a great vampire hunter on his own.

I can't recall if I have ever seen this one or not.  I am sure I must have, but that could have been 30+ years ago really.

Tomorrow. It's a monster mash.

October Movie Reviews: Dracula's Daughter 1936

Next up for my reviews is one of the firsts of a major trend in horror movies; the sequel (though Bride of Frankenstein (1935) was the first true sequel) . This one is is a sequel of sorts to Dracula. We also get a few other firsts: The angst vampire and the lesbian vampire.

Dracula's Daughter (1936)

Dracula's Daughter is an interesting flick.
This time our hero Van Helsing is up against Countess Marya Zaleska, played by Gloria Holden, who is Dracula's Daughter and also a vampire herself. Like daddy, she also has a taste for pretty girls. Though unlike daddy, Zaleska abhors her state as a vampire. I am reminded of the Marvel Comics, Lilith the Daughter of Dracula (not to mention one of the female victims of this film is a model named Lili). She had a similar relationship with her father and her condition.

The plot is similar to the the Stoker story of Dracula's Guest, or the first part of Dracula. But there is more to that. I like how Zaleska wants to ritually destroy Dracula's body in hopes it will cure her.

The film has it's moments, but in the end it is not as good or memorable as the Lugosi effort, which is of course too bad given where the the female vampire in cinema would take us during the Hammer years and later into the 80's. Zaleska is the spiritual forerunner to Miriam Blalock. Though heavily glossed over with the censors of the 1930's.   I have read reports about this film long ago in the Celluiod Closet, but the reality of film is much for subdued than the reviews claim.  It's subtle, but there is a subtext there. 

There is no Dracula in this one, but we do have Van Helsing.  Something we will see again with Hammer and "The Brides of Dracula".  

As a monster you end up feeling sorry for Zaleska more than anything.  Holden has a why of making you feel like she is the victim here.  Mind you that doesn't stop her from mistreating her servant (to her ultimate demise) or attaking the young couple, there is a quality about.  She actually reminds me a bit of Betty Davis here.  Smoky beauty with a hardened heart.

This biggest issue I think here is the movie is slow, even for the time I think.   I'd love to see a high quality remake with a modern cast. 

Next up. Dracula also had a son.

October Movie Reviews: Dracula 1931 (Spanish version)

For my October Reviews I am now moving to a real classic.

Continuing with my delving into the great 1931 Dracula, this time the Spanish language version.

Drácula (1931)

Drácula was a Spanish language version of the Tod Browning movie, filmed on the same set at night.  The effect was a much moodier look and tone to the movie.  If you can speak Spanish (and even if you can't) check this movie out.  It has everything that the English language has, but just seems so much cooler.
According to the audio commentary on Dracula and the documentary, Road to Dracula, the "B" team would film at night on the same set as Dracula.  The director would watch the "Dailies" from the Browning/Lugosi crew and cast and work to improve on them.  They also cleaved closer to that actual shooting script.
The differences are subtle, but still noticeable.  
This production for example seemed to learn from the mistakes of the previous day's shooting.  Also because the censors didn't care about the Spanish version, they got away with more sex appeal.  For example the dresses revealed more cleavage and Lupita Tovar's  performance as Eva (Mina) in general.
In the end this is a hard one to review since I don't speak Spanish and what I see is so close to the Bela Lugosi one that I instead look at them as a whole.  But I am glad I finally got to see it.  Carlos Villarias will never really get mentioned in the same breath as Bela Lugosi, save as a comparison, and his acting was not great.  But there is something about the roll that he also made his own; despite what looks and sounds like a Bela Lugosi impression. In Spanish.

If you are a Dracula fan then I think you need to see this at least once.