October Movie Reviews: Count Dracula (1977)

For my October Reviews I am back on Dracula.

Count Dracula (1977, BBC)

I am half-tempted to count this one as two movies.  It does come in two-parts and it was rather long.

Ok let's start with the good.
This is closer to the book than any other movie so far.
There are some differences though.  Minor are Lucy and Mina are sisters here.  Arthur Holmwood and Quincy Morris have been combined to a single character, Quincy Holmwood, but he is still American.  An aside, I love it when English actors do American accents.  Quincy is so stereotypically Texan that it comes off more endearing than comedic or even bad.  The actor is very earnest about his role.

Louis Jourdan is a fantastic Dracula.
Susan Penhaligon as Lucy does remind me quite a bit of Sadie Frost, who played Lucy in the 1992 movie.  One gets the feeling that Francis Ford Coppola watched this movie to get ideas.

Judi Bowker (who would later earn her geek cred playing Andromeda in the original Clash of the Titans) plays a wonderful Mina here.  She has the sweet innocence that one needs in Mina in the early part of the tale.  She was the best Lucy up that time and rivals that of Kate Nelligan in the Hollywood film of 1979.

The bad. Though it is not really that bad.

The effects are Doctor Who-in-the-70's quality, but this should not be a surprise given it was in the 70s on BBC.  Missing Holmwood is not that big of an issue.  When you are doing this on stage fewer actors are better, but as we would later see in the FFC Dracula (1992) that it can be done.


It suffers from some of the same issues as the book.  Long and drawn out in places.

All in all a great movie, tribute to the BBC.  I am glad I finally got a chance to watch it.

Dracula: Ghosts of Albion

Something I have always wanted to do is bring Dracula into Ghosts of Albion.  I could imagine a plot similar to Dracula's Guest, only with the Cast.  The cast come to castle Dracula and meet up with the Count, in his old form from the the beginning of the book.  I'd like some sort of mystery.  Maybe a murder, but the Count wants to find out who did it just as much as the Cast.  I'd like to pit the Count against the cast, but not in a physical or combative way; I need him "alive" at the end of the tale.
I'd use the maps from Castle Ravenloft, since they are supposed to be like Dracula's castle anyway.

But the issue is, and has been, I can't quite come up with something interesting enough for the Cast to do with Dracula.  I figure if I am pulling out the big gun here, it needs to be nothing short of awesome.

If I come up with something you all will be the firsts to know.

Count Dracula of Transylvania

Name: Count Dracula
Motivation: To leave Transylvania and see new lands
Creature Type: Vampire, Protector

Attributes: Strength 9, Dexterity 6, Constitution 7, Intelligence 5, Perception 5, Willpower 7
Life Points: 98
Drama Points: 10

Qualities
Acute Senses
Age 4
Animal Communication (limited to bats, rats and wolves)
Charisma
Cloak of Beasts (bat, rat, and wolf)
Control Weather
Hard to Kill 8
Hypnosis 3
Nerves of Steel 2
Magic 4
Mesmerize
Protector of Transylvania
Resources 7
Scale Walls
Soldier, Officer (Retired)
Status, Noble
Sunlight Immunity (limited, unable to change form or use his magical powers except at noon)
Vampire

Drawbacks
Adversary (monster hunters, rival vampires, some gypsies, people with the last name Van Helsing) 8
Anti-Social Impulses (violent)
Archaic 1
Attractive -1  (remember, this is Old Dracula with the bad breath, very thin, hairy palms, and long mustache)
Covetous (Lechery, 2)
Cruel 3 (deranged)
Home Soil
Honorable 1
Love, Tragic (sure, why not.  He believes so at least)
Natural Barrier (running water)
Obsession (leaving Transylvania) 2
Obsession (find a bride) 1
Secret 3 (many)

Skills
Armed Mayhem 7
Art 2
Athletics 6
Crime 5
Doctor 1
Drive/Ride 5 (Coaches)
Engineering 2
Fisticuffs 6
Influence 5
Knowledge 8 (he has done nothing for the last few centuries but read)
Languages 9 (he speaks many languages including English with no noticeable accent)
Marksmanship 3
Notice 10
Occultism 9
Science 4

Combat Maneuvers
Name Score Damage
Punch 12 18 Bash
Break neck 16 36 Special
Sword 13 36 Slash/stab

Bite (vampire)14 22 Must Grapple first; no defense action
Dodge 13 -- Defense action
Grapple 15 -- Resisted by Dodge

Bat 20 -- +8 to hiding
Bite (bat) 14 8 Slash/stab

Wolf 20 -- Double movement; +3 to Crime at night
Bite (wolf) 14 15 Slash/stab
Claws (wolf) 14 15 Slash/stab

Magic 20 Varies By spell
Deflect 20 90° spell deflection (Innate Magic)
Hold 19 Holds spell in place for SL rounds
Dispel 17 Cancels Spell
Volley 14 Returns spell to originator

This is Dracula in 1839. He has not left Transylvania in years and is now planning his moving to England. Of course there are the Protectors of Albion yet to deal with.

Think the old man that greats Harker in the beginning of the book; Old, not very attractive, but charismatic. Here is also the Protector of Transylvania. Though you might want to rule that in your games he looses the benefit of those powers when he leaves his lands.

October Movie Reviews: Dracula 1992

For my October Reviews I am continuing my Dracula reviews.

Dracula (1992)
Also know as "Bram Stoker's Dracula".
Depending on your point of view this is either the best cinematic Dracula, or the worst. But before that lets take the movie at face value.

What I like the most of about this one is it is beyond a doubt one of the better cinematic adaptations of Stoker's book.  All the characters are here, including the oft missed Quincey Morris and Arthur Holmwood.  There are tons of little details that I love.  Dracula's shadow in the early scenes at Castle Dracula are great and invoke the classic Nosferatu.  The newspapers, Draucla's map of London, even a sandwich board advertising the Lyceum Theater are nice touches.  The sets are masterful, this may be the best Castle Dracula since Lugosi.  Of course watch for Dracula's shadow in his castle.  Nosferatu anyone?  The three brides, always hinted at, are revealed in their full gory glory here.  This might also be one of the first film roles for Monica Bellucci. The use of real Romanian is a nice treat, even if it isn't perfect (it's modern Romanian through out, even when medieval Romanian should have been used).

Though the movie is not without some serious problems.  The whole Mina and Dracula love affair thing is just another example of the Dracula/Vampire fetish. And don't get me started on the whole absinthe scene.  As much as I like Wynnona Ryder I felt her Mina was very flat.  Yes, and there is Keeanu Reeves as Harker, but I like Reeves and didn't mind this, though I kept thinking he was going to say "No way Van Helsing!" ala Ted.  Sadie Frost was a bit overtly sexual as Lucy, but I preferred her performance over that of Jan Francis' portrayal of the similar character in the 1979 film.

We have a little joke among my friends, if you can't figure out an actor to play a roll, get Gary Oldman, he can do anything.  He is convincing as Dracula, both old and young, the suave seducer and terrible monster.  But sometimes here he is a bit over the top.

This movie, more so than even the Jack Palance one, makes the connection between Dracula, the vampire, and Dracula aka Vlad the Impaler more explicit.  It also bridges that important gap of how one man became the monster.  At the time of the movie I liked that, but after just re-watching I am less convinced.  Oh it still is a good bit of storytelling, but it is another factor of the whole Dracula loves Mina sub-plot that gets on my nerves.

In terms of the other characters, well they are all there. Arthur Holmwood, Quincy Morris, Dr. Seward are all great in their respective points in the story played very well by Cary Elwes, Bill Campbell and Richard E. Grant respectively.  Anthony Hopkins plays a much crazier Van Helsing than those before him.  Taking that "we are all God's madmen" line a little too literal I think. Hopkins is great of course, he is Sir-Anthony-fucking-Hopkins after all, but some things about his portrayal bugged me.  The whole "the foe I have been searching for all my life" thing bugged me too.  Was this a metaphorical foe as in "all evil" or "Dracula" in particular?  I got the impression that they meant Dracula himself.

I do have this copy of the script that is full of production notes, stills from the movie, images from the various Dracula publications over the years and Victorian era photos/pictures.   It is sitting in-between my copy of Ghosts of Albion and Victoriana on my "Horror RPG" shelf.

The next full outing of Dracula will have to do better than this one in order to be remembered. And we are about due for one.

Dracula: True 20

I like True20. I do.  It suffers from some issues though.  If you like generic games, then it is great, but it still has classes and levels.  Plus the only way to really do a character properly is a load of multiclassing.

Here is Dracula in his True 20 form. Warrior is obvious, as is expert to some degree.  Adept really is there to cover his powers.

Count Dracula, True 20

Type: 16th level Undead (Adept 2/Expert 1/Warrior 13)
Size: Medium
Speed: 30 ft

Abilities: Str +8, Dex +7, Con -, Int +3, Wis +1, Cha +3

Skills: Acrobatics 19 (+26), Bluff 8 (+11), Climb 8 (+16), Concentration 7 (+8), Diplomacy 11 (+14), Disable Device 2 (+5), Disguise 2 (+5), Escape Artist 2 (+9), Gather Info. 7 (+10), Handle Animal 2 (+5), Intimidate 14 (+17), Jump 2 (+10), Languages 5 (+5), Medicine 4 (+5), Notice 3 (+4), Ride 6 (+13), Search 5 (+8), Sense Motive 3 (+4), Sleight of Hand 3 (+10), Stealth 6 (+13), Survival 8 (+9), Swim 0 (+8), Knowledge (History) 2 (+5), Knowledge (Supernatural) 2 (+5), Knowledge (Religion) 2 (+5)

Feats: Iron Will, Menacing, Leadership, Armor Training (Heavy), Armor Training (Light), Weapon Training, Armor Training (Heavy), Weapon Training (Long Sword), All-out Attack, Canny Dodge, Attack Focus (Long Sword), Defensive Attack, Diplomatic, Improved Strike, Dedicated, Influential, Night Vision, Uncanny Dodge, Rage, Smite Opponent, Greater Attack Focus, Accurate Attack, Power (Weather Shaping), Power (Mind Touch), Master Plan

Traits: Determination, No Constitution, Dark Vision (60ft), Proficiency (Natural Weapons), Immunity (Mind Influencing Effects), Immunity (Sleep, Poison, Paralysis, Stunning), Immunity (Critical Hits, Fatigue), Immunity (Fortitude Saves), Unhealing, Healed by Harm (Harmed by Heal)

Powers: Suggestion 5 (+8) DC 14, Wind Shaping 5 (+8) DC 14

Combat: Unarmed +21, Damage +8 (20/+3), Longsword +21, Damage +11 (19/+3), Defense +21/+22, Initiative +7

Saving Throws: Toughness +8, Fortitude +8, Reflex +11, Will +8

October Movie Reviews: Dracula 1979

For my October Reviews I am continuing my Dracula reviews.

Dracula (1979)
The John Badham film was one of the first Dracula films I saw in the theaters.  Well, actually I think I saw it at a Drive-In. If you don't remember those then I can't help you.

This movie is a visual master-piece and Frank Langella dominates every scene he is in and he is in quite a number of them.  Dracula in the book doesn't get a lot of "screen time", but this one cleaves closer to the screen-play.  Like Lugosi before him, Langella played the character on stage first.
This is another one of the tales that reverses the roles of Mina and Lucy.  Normally it is Mina who loves Jonathan Harker and who is later seduced by Dracula and Lucy who is the friend who dies by Dracula.
Kate Nelligan is a great Lucy (in the Mina role) and Lawerence Oliver is great as the aged Van Helsing.  Donald Plesasence as Seward though left a little to be desired. I guess they decided to drop Seward's morphine addiction and swapped it with eating.  Seward is eating in nearly every scene he is in. Watch close and you will see a younger pre-Doctor Sylvester McCoy.

For some odd reason this movie is set in the Edwardian age (1913 to be exact) rather than the more traditional late Victorian.  It almost plays out as a sequel to the book, if you can come up with a good reason why Van Helsing and Seward don't remember Dracula from before, and deal with the issue that Van Helsing's wife was an invalid in the book.  Maybe she died and he got remarried and had a daughter that he named Mina (after Mina Harker) and Seward got married and had a daughter named Lucy (after Lucy Westerna).  Figure John Harker in this tale is really John Quincey Harker, the son of John and Mina Harker and "Milo" Reinfield is the son of R. M. Reinfield from the book.  At least that is how I have viewed the film for years.

This is an interesting film for a number of reasons.  First it has another great score by John Williams that is so sweeping in it's construction that you can feel that the sort of languid dream quality of the Dracula/Lucy scenes.  Also it was the first Dracula film that many people my age recall seeing.  I had seen the older Hammer and Universal ones yes, but I had been much younger.  I was 9 when this came out and the scene where Mina comes back to her grave scared the crap out of me.  Plus it was at a point in my life when I had not yet read the book, but knew of it's existence.
Langella's Dracula is a sexual predator.  He takes Mina and then Lucy because he can.  There is no "lost love here" like what we will see in the Francis Ford Coppola outing of 1992.

Langella does something here that few Draculas manage.  He acts like royalty.  Christopher Lee comes close and Oldman does capture the warrior-lord well, but Langella acts like a Count or a Prince. Like I said, he dominates every scene he is in and even when not the focus, his presence is felt.  That's some good acting.

This was my favorite Dracula, but almost 13 years later a new one would challenge that title.

Dracula: The Books

Despite my reviews, Dracula had a life before cinema.

The book "Dracula" is one of the most influential in the English language.  While the book itself is long, and often slow in places, one cannot deny the effect it has had.  There were vampire tales before it, Varney the Vampire and The Vampyre come to mind, and there were even better vampire stories before it, Carmilla is prime example.  But none had the effect of Dracula, both the book and the character.

If you have never the book then you owe it to yourself to do so. You can get the book nearly anywhere, including for free at Project Guttenberg.   I am fond of the Leonard Wolf annotated version myself, but I would read the book without the annotations first.









Dracula in print, like his movie counterpart, has also had a number of sequels published over the years.  Some were good, most though were not.  Here is a round-up of a few.

WARNING, there are spoilers here if you have not read these books.

The Holmes-Dracula File by Fred Saberhagen

I read this so many years ago that my recollection of it is fuzzy at best.  I remember not liking it that much at the time, which I think had more to do with how Saberhagen choose to portray Dracula as a misunderstood hero. And the wood thing. And the amnesia thing too.  I should re-read it to be sure.
Funny though, I am watching "Count Dracula" from the BBC now, and the cover art on this book reminds me of Louis Jourdan. The timing is right for it too.

Anno Dracula by Kim Newman
These books are just goofy fun.  There is a good story here, one about Jack the Ripper and the changes happening to England now that Dracula sits on the throne next to Queen Victoria.  All sorts of name dropping in this one (oh look there's Lestat, hey that's Prince Mamuwalde!) and nods to old vampire movies and books.  I have not read all of his books, but the first one was quite fun.  I remember at the time thinking that if Vampire the Masqurade was as fun as this book then I'd play it more.

The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova

Oh I LIKED this one. A secret book bearing the symbol from the Order of the Dragon shows up ever so often to historians throughout the 20th century.  Each of them begins a quest that leads them to...what? Dracula? That is too insane, but as each one investigates further and further that is the conclusion they reach.  The Historian spans three generations of historians as they search for the burial place of the infamous Prince only to find he is not there.  Sweeping in scope and attention paid to the smallest detail you can almost smell the old books and taste the blood as you read this one.
It is a sequel in the loose sense.  All the characters have read the Stoker novel and use it as a basis.  It is never made clear whether or not Stoker was one of their kind as well or just happened to be lucky.
This one is long and you should have a love of history, old books or libraries to get the full satisfaction of reading it.
The narrator of the tale, who is 17 in the book, but in her 50s as she is retelling it, is a descendant of Vlad Dracula and would make for a great Van Helsing like character in a modern game.

Fangland by John Marks 

This is a modern re-telling of Dracula rather than an out-right sequel. The main character Evangeline Harker fills the John Harker role, while Ion Torgu is our vampire (of sorts). It starts off really good and I like the gender reversal and the modern setting. Plus I could always imagine that Evangeline was the decedent of Johnathan and Mina Harker.
But the book fell apart on me for a lot of reasons.  First, Ion has none of Dracula's charm or grace.  I also found I didn't care much for the characters in the book and the author kept giving me more.  Telling it from the point of view of Trotter, a character I didn't like, also didn't help.
What bugged me the most was the part where Evangeline meets up with this other woman Clementine Spence after she (Harker) had been tortured at "Dracula's" home. Harker and Spence have a brief physical relationship while in Romania and Harker describes herself as "changing" which we learn means becoming a killer. One night she rapes and kills Spence and then drinks her blood.
Unlike the book (or movies) Harker does not "get better" but has become a vampire. The book makes it clear that Harker only had sex with Spence in order to close enough to kill her.  This is another case of the Dead/Evil Lesbian Cliché and frankly it is getting quite old.  The rest of the book was really just mush after that.
If I kept Evangeline Harker it would only be as a name drop and saying she had been killed under strange circumstances in Romania.  Dracula getting his revenge.

Dracula the Un-dead by Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt

I am of mixed feelings about this one.  On one hand we have an interesting story about the events of our heroes 25 years after Dracula.  We have the great, grand-nephew of Bram Stoker penning the tale.  We have a cool mystery involving Elizabeth Bathory.
Then is all goes bad.
The stories never quite jell, the book makes claims that "Dracula" by Stoker got it all wrong and even makes mistakes.  In truth it is like the authors never actually read the book and instead wrote a sequel to the 1990's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" movie.  Of course there are more cliches here as well.  Tying Bathory to the Jack the Ripper murders (which also got some details wrong about that, and didn't do it a well as in Anno Dracula), more evil/dead lesbians in the form of Bathory (God would not allow her to be a lesbian so she rebelled against God and men, but kills women), Mina still pinning over her "Prince" and using a katana to fight of one of Bathory's brides. I could go and on, but I won't.
I liked the more explicit tie-in with Dracula and Bathory.  I like that Dracula, even though is back up and running, is still not 100%, I like Mina not aging (shades of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) and the way her and Johnathan's relationship turned sour. I like Seward's morphine addicted vampire hunter.  So like I said a lot of good ideas strung together rather poorly.  In the end the book just made me mad because how bad the ending was.  This book was so derivative of other ideas that it is wonder it got published.
From this I use most of the background and chuck the narrative.

Special Mention

Grave Peril: The Dresden Files, Book 3

I picked this up after a long pause with the series and I have to say this was the best book in series (so far).  I mention here because after nearly throwing Fangland out the window after reading Dracula the Un-Dead this was so good it restored my faith in the vampire story.  Grave Peril is a vampire story and how Chicago's very own Harry Dresden manages to single handedly piss off 2/3rds of all the world vampires.
Dracula is mentioned in the book and Harry also states that Stoker penned the "big guide on how to destroy vampires".  So I'd rather go that direction in my games.  Sure I'll take the idea from DtU-D and say one of the vampire hunters told Stoker their tale and 10 years after that he publishes the book in hopes of building a stage career out of it, but in reality the effect was that vampire hunters all over the world now know how to kill vampires better.
In any case this book was very good and the best one I have read this month.  I am on book 4 now and it is so far just as good.

Dracula: Chill

In keeping with this month's theme I am also posting some stats for Dracula for the various games I have played over the years.
I have talked about my love for Chill before and in particular the wonderful Chill Vampires book.  These stats are based on the ones found in that book, but tweaked after playing other horror games.

Dracula

BASIC ABILITIES
Strength 110
Perception 100
Dexterity 65
Willpower 120
Agility 80
Luck/EWS 150
Personality 70
Stamina 150
Fear 6*
*Fear Checks. Characters need not make fear checks if Dracula appears as a normal human.

Attack **/95%
**Depends on the form Dracula takes

Movement Sprint in human form without STA loss. 75 as gas. 225 as Bat or Wolf

EDGES & DRAWBACKS (2nd Ed)
Name CIPs Notes
Psychological flaw 1 Obsessions (find a bride)

SKILLS
Name Rank Score Calc
Dagger/Knife (M) 160
Anthropology/ Archaeology (M) 130
Art Criticism (M) 165
History (M) 165
Hypnotism (M) 140
Investigation (M) 145
Language, Contemporary [English, German, all Eastern-European languages] (M) 165
Legend Lore (M) 165
Modeling (M) 135
Disguise(M) 123
Filching(M) 138
Graphology/ Forgery (M) 140
Occult Lore (M) 120

Movement: Varies according to form: in human form, can sprint without Stamina loss; can move 75' per round as mist or fog, 225' as bat or wolf.

Disciplines: Animation of the Dead, Appear Dead (Self), Change Self (to large bat, large wolf, cloud of fog), Create a Feast, Darken, Dreamsend, Evil Eye, Flight1, Gnarl, Influence, Quiet, Slam, Sleep, Steal Memory, Summon, Swarm, Wave of Fog

Dracula can use Flight at night. To fly, he assumes the form of a cloud of sparkling moonbeams that dance in the darkness, then materializes when the flight ends. He cannot be destroyed while in this moonbeam form.

IPs: 3300

Characteristics
1. As a Common Carpathian Dracula cast no shadow or reflection and cannot be photographed or video taped.
2. Human blood excites and enrages him. He must make a Willpower check.
3. Does not die when exposed to sunlight. Sunlight dos weaken him and limits his use of EWS powers.

October Movie Reviews: Dracula AD 1972 (1972)

It's Disco Dracula! Well not really, but it is the first Hammer Dracula set in the 1970s.

This movie reunites Lee and Cushing as Dracula and Van Helsing for the first time since Horror of Dracula.

Dracula AD 1972 (1972)
We begin this one with Dracula and Van Helsing (oddly name Lawrence, but that is fine I think I see what they are doing here) fighting on a coach.  They crash and both die.  One of Dracs followers collects the Count and buries him near Van Helsing.

Ok a minor stop here.  Normally I don't quibble about continuity, especially one in a horror film.  But if this takes place in 1872 and the event of Dracula (the book and supposedly the movie) in 1897 then...ok, repeat to yourself it is only a show...

Fast forward 100 years (to the day-why does it always happen like that?) we meet up with hipster 70s teenage set, Jess (Jessica Van Helsing) and her friends which includes a Johnny Alucard.  Jessica is the grand-daughter of "Lorrimer" Van Helsing, who is in turn the grand-son of Lawrence.  Johnny proposes this new way to "get some kicks" (it's the 70s) and that is a Satanic rite (yeah, the 70's).  The rite brings back Dracula (of course) and the first victim is Caroline Munro.
Her body is found the next day and the police seek out Van Helsing on the matter since they think there may be a ritual slaying angle.

Soon Van Helsing is on the trail but not before we get a few more bodies.  Dracula is after Jessica of course, but wants to get Lorrimer too.   Big battle in the unsanctified Church and Dracula is killed, once again by Van Helsing.

Ok.
I have some issues with this movie.

First, it was not as bad as I was lead to believe.  Yes, it's not very good and the plot in not that different than what we saw in Taste the Blood of Dracula.  The count is still chasing after pretty girls, he is still hunting down people named Van Helsing and really all the is changed is the setting.
Speaking of which, I know it's 70's London, but did we really need the band going through TWO whole songs in the beginning?  It would have been ok if they had been someone, or even good, but we got a third-rate Sly and the Family Stone that I have never heard of before and doubt neither has anyone else.  edit: ok, they have their own Wikipedia page.

The Satanic angle was interesting, but un-needed,  Dracula is evil enough on his own without worrying about being upstaged by the Devil.

Like the Universal movies before it the Hammer Dracs are beginning to show their diminishing returns with sequels.  Granted Lee never had the indignity of facing off against the comedic duo of the time like Lugosi eventually did, but taking out a group of English Mods is almost as bad.

What I do like is the idea that Van Helsing family has been doing this for years. There is room in my games for a Lawrence, Lorrimer, Jessica, Abraham and even Rachel Van Helsing.  Not so sure about a Gabriel though.

In the end this movie was a disappointment in terms of lost potential.

October Movie Reviews: Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)

For my October Reviews I continuing the Hammer Horror Dracula Collection with the first entry of the 1970s..

Christopher Lee has returned in the next Hammer film and it starts as the previous one of completing.  Dracula is struggling on the cross he was impaled on and  soon dies, leaving his cloak, ring, and blood.  A passerby witnesses this and we are off an running.

Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)

This one begins as Dracula has Risen From His Grave ends. So timeline wise we are still just around 10 years from Van Helsing's destruction of Dracula.  A passerby, Weller, sees Dracula die so he collects Dracula's clothes and blood.  We switch to a church scene where we meet the principle families.  The father, Mr. Hargood scolds his daughter later for "flirting" with a young man before he heads out for his end of the month "charity work".  In reality he, and the other men from the church, Paxton and Secker, have formed a small club where they partake in prostitutes.  Now here I want to point out that while Dracula's castle seems just down the raod a bit, this all looks like 1890s London.  I know I should not quibble.
Anyway they meet up with a disgraced Lord who plans to show them all sorts of pleasures.  He purchases Dracula's blood and makes a drink of it using his own blood.  The others do not drink and it kills the Lord.  Later Dracula rises up, transforming the dead body into his own.  Neat trick that.
Dracula vows to kill those that have killed his servant.
He attacks Hargood first, convincing his daughter to beat him in the head with a shovel. He get's Paxton's daughter and she kills her father and likewise with Secker and his son.  Dracula is about to get rid of Alice Hargood when her boyfriend shows up, now armed with knowledge left to him by her father, to destroy Dracula.  He puts a cross in the door (Dracula should really get that door changed, people keep doing that) and blesses his coffin.  Dracula falls from a balcony and lands on alter turning to dust.

This was a more interesting movie for a few reasons.  One, Dracula manipulates others into doing his killing for him, though he is not above doing some himself.  Plus this movie is the first that has Hammer pushing the boundaries some more.  While there was always beautiful women and sex-appeal, this is the first of the Dracula films with some nudity in it and explict references to sex.  It was 1970 afterall, but I think this was more due to the fact that audiences, now fat on American movies and American sex and violence, wanted more and Hammer needed to fill the seats.  So this does feel more like a "slasher flick" than some of the previous movies.
This was yet another movie where Lee nealry didn't reprise the role of the Count, but in the end he must have gave in.  This was also one of the last of the Victorian era Hammer Dracula movies (as far as I can tell).  After this (and Scars of Dracula, which I don't own) we move on to Dracula 1972 which sets it in the modern age.

I know I had never seen this one before, others I might not be clear about, but this was a first time viewing.

October Movie Reviews: Dracula has Risen From His Grave 1968

For my October Reviews I continuing the Hammer Horror Dracula Collection.

Dracula has Risen From His Grave (1968)
This film takes place one year after the events of Dracula Prince of Darkness and the villagers still fear Dracula, though he is dead. An accident though causes a priest to bleed into Dracula's tomb and just like that he is back.

Though we spend the first 45 minutes or so dealing with the Monsignor and his family (his sister in law and niece).   We don't even get a victim till then.  That being said Dracula has still spoken more lines here than in the last movie.  The movie centers around Dracula's revenge on the Monsignor and getting his niece.
This movie did something very cool in it, Dracula was staked and before the hero could do anything else about it he pulled the stake out of his own chest.

I saw this movie, so long ago now that all I can recall of the movie the end scene where Dracula was impaled on the cross.  Though in the back of my mind I must have remembered the scene with the stake since I made an allusion to it in the Ghosts of Albion game.

In the end there was not much to this movie.  No creepy assistant, only one death due to draining by Dracula and two incidental deaths unless you count the girl in the beginning. No Van Helsing either.
Dracula didn't even burst into flames when he is impaled on a cross.  He just sorta died.

Certainly the weakest of the Hammer Dracula's so far.

October Movie Reviews: Dracula Prince of Darkness 1966

For my October Reviews I have another one from the Hammer Horror Collection.

This movie is a proper Dracula sequel since it features Christopher Lee as the Count; though he never speaks a line in it.  Unlike the Brides of Dracula before it, this one does not have Van Helsing.

Dracula Prince of Darkness (1966)

We are treated to a montage from Dracula (1958) of Van Helsing destroying the Count.  The movie starts proper with a funeral (in my memories all Hammer Films started like this) of a young girl who we soon learn is believed to be a vampire.  We are introduced to an Abbot or Monk (I was never sure of the difference) who claims she isn't and deserves a proper burial.

The scene changes to the Kents, two brothers and their wives, who are on holiday from London to travel.  Our Abbot meets up with them and invites to them to stay at his abbey and warns them to stay away from Carlsbad and the castle (which does not show up on their maps).
As fate would have it, they end up there due to a broken carriage wheel and are forced to take shelter.  They find the castle warm and inviting, with food laid out for four.  They meet the supposed sole inhabitant of the castle, Klove. He claims he is carrying out the final wishes of his master, Count Dracula.
They stay the night and one brother follows Klove to Dracula's tomb where he is killed and his blood is used to resurrect the dead ashes of the vampire.  Dracula goes after the brother's wife and vamps her.
The other brother wakes up to find his brother and wife gone.  He and his wife try to leave, only to be brought back to the castle by Klove.  Here Dracula and Helen attack.  The escape, only to be thrown in their stolen carriage and recued by the Abbot. 
The Abbot knows about vampires and claims that Dracula is their master and was killed 10 years ago (Dracula 1958).  While they rest, Dracula attacks Diana and takes her while Helen is left behind to be killed by the Abbot.
Charles and the Abbot ride to Dracula's castle where they manage to kill Klove on the way and rescue Diana.  Dracula is trapped on the ice surrounding his castle.  The Abbot shoots the ice cause Dracula to slip into the running water and "drown".

Ok. This is an odd one.  First there are no lines for Dracula.  That is no big really, he had few lines in the book too.  But Modern Dracula is a chatty guy-or rather we like our bad guys to be chatty.  Blame it on Bond I guess.
Of course this movie is really nothing more than a proto-80's slasher flick.  Replace Dracula with a psycho killer and the tourists with teens and you are set.  Of course instead of four we would need six and Drac would need to kill more, but the idea is the same.
There is no Van Helsing here which is not that big of a deal really.
This is one of the first Dracula "resurrection" movies.  No ceremony, just pour blood into vampire ashes and mix well.  It's simple and it works.  The effects for Dracula's return are great for the time and I am sure they were quite proud of how it turned out.

The movie is not bad as far as plot goes. The action is slow at times, but that is more due to the time in which is was filmed.

I can't recall if I have ever seen this one or not.  Some of the older Hammer films all blurred into one in time, and it has been 25-30 years since I have seen some of these.  I didn't recall anything specific about this one, so it is likely it was new to me.

Dracula: other stats

I have posted Dracula stats in the past.

Here are some links:

Big Eyes, Small Mouth 3.0
Mutants and Masterminds (2nd Ed)
Doctor Who, Adventures in Time and Space

Enjoy!

Dracula: AD&D 1st Edition

I have been watching a lot of Dracula movies of late. That has gotten me thinking about how much of a great D&D antagonist Dracula really is.

These differ from my B/X/C stats a bit. Mostly I wrote these many, many years ago.

Count Dracula, AD&D 1st Edition

DRACULA (Vlad Tepes)
FREQUENCY: Unique
NO. APPEARING: 1
ARMOR CLASS: -1 (-4 with dexterity)
MOVE: 12”/18”
HIT DICE: 13 (103 hp)
% IN LAIR: 50%
TREASURE TYPE: G
NO. OF ATTACKS: 2 (by touch or weapon)
DAMAGE/ATTACK: 1-8 (+7)
SPECIAL ATTACKS: Blood drain*, hypnosis, +4 to hit in combat
SPECIAL DEFENSES: +1 or better weapon to hit
MAGIC RESISTANCE: 25%
INTELLIGENCE: Exceptional
ALIGNMENT: Chaotic evil
SIZE: M
PSIONIC ABILITY: 204
Attack/Defense Modes: B,C/J
S: 19 D: 17 I: 17 C: 19 W: 17 CH: 17

*Dracula drains blood at the rate of 2 CON points per attack. He must succesfully attach to the neck of his victim and drain them of blood. His touch does not drain energy levels.

Getting Dracula to your AD&D world should not really be a problem. There are the Mists of Ravenloft, various Gate spells and even the Psionic Discipline Probability Travel. The how is not as important as the why. Why would you want to bring the King of Vampires to your world?

Long ago when playing AD&D 2nd Ed in college I ran an adventure where an Atlantean Mage summoned Dracula and was promptly killed.  Dracula the began his killing spree anew.

I am always looking for reasons to bring him back.

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)

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.

October Movie Reviews: Dracula 1931

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

When watching these movies I try to keep in mind the time that they were made.  What we consider horror is not the same thing as 20, 50 or 80 years ago.  Every generation remakes the classics and leaves their imprint on them.  The 30's gave us two great examples.  Today, Dracula and tomorrow the Spanish language Drácula.


Dracula (1931) (and audio commentary and documentary)

This is the one that gave us Bela Lugosi as the immortal count.  Lugosi's performance is a bit over the top, but he does give us the suave Dracula.  Some scenes of this movie are so iconic that they have almost outlived the context they were presented in.  Dracula on the stairs in his castle is one, and the meeting of Dracula and Van Helsing in the library is another. Dracula spreading his cape like a bat, or heck even the cape at all.  Here is a question, did Dracula ever say "I never drink ... wine." in the book or play?  No.  That came from this movie and it also appeared in the 1979 and 1992 versions.  I also think, more so than the book or play before it this movie really personalized the battle between Dracula and Van Helsing.  Something that was taken to a new level in the Hammer films.

Lugosi got his start playing Dracula on the stage, something that Frank Langella would repeat almost 50 years later.  Though unlike Langella, he never quite escaped the roll.  For better or worse he has been so entwined with the roll that when watching the movie you should keep this in mind.  A lot of what we associate with the roll comes from right here.

Reinfield replaces Harker here in the begining, or rather they are combined into one character. Despite this Dwight Frye is a great Harker-like character. We do get a Harker later on.  The coach ride to Castle Dracula is very reminiscent of the similar ride in the 1992 movie.  Mina is Seward's daughter, again from the stage-play.

Audio Commentary:  Given that I have seen Dracula before, I wanted to watch this with the audio commentary on.  Things I didn't know:  They are speaking Hungarian in the movie.  There is a lot in this movie that never happened before in movies.  Some of the shots used here, which we take for granted, were new here.  Lon Chaney was supposed to be Dracula.
Listening to the audio commentary it is interesting,  a lot of what is now well known of Dracula lore came about by complete happenstance.  Dracula speaking in Eastern European accident came about because the director of Broadway play could not afford his first choice and he had to hire Bela Lugosi, who could barely speak English. For the movie Lugosi earned $3500.00 for 7 weeks of filming.

The Road to Dracula: A very interesting documentary on the making of Dracula and the Spanish language version.  It talks about a lot of the same things mentioned in the audio commentary, only in much greater detail.  We hear from film historians, Bela Lugosi's son and Clive Barker among others.  It's very cool.