The Satanic Rites of Dracula

Skorpionn · 10th June 2002, 09:07 PM

Well, I just got my DVD of The Satanic Rites of Dracula - WOW, I was only two years old when CL made that film. I'm expecting 100 Years of Horror also with CL as the "host" - I love old horror movies, the acting is SOOO much better than the **** they churn out these days.

**Matt Gemmell** · 11th June 2002, 12:25 AM

I totally agree with regards to the acting in older horror films . I think one of the main factors is that they were made by adults for adults . Whearas todays seem to be made by MTV trained morons for children .Was that too harsh?......naw.
I like The Satanic Rites Of Dracula .Yes I know it has a cold TV feel about it and the direction is shoddy but I still like it .When you consider most sequels are just a rehash of the original you have to admire Hammer for trying something diffirent .OK maybe it did'nt quite work but it was a damned good try .

noblerot · 11th June 2002, 03:01 AM

Quote:

I think one of the main factors is that they were made by adults for adults .

I'm not so sure that's true. I saw lots of old horror movies at the kiddie matinee. Genre movies were considered kidstuff - too much fantasy and make-believe for the sensible adults.

But all those kiddies have grown up now. The market for horror movies is bigger than ever. They have real budgets now. And with the movie rating system, there are no more kiddie horror matinees. Plus the special effects get better every year and they've got big name actors and directors.

I think it's a great time for horror movies. I hope they keep it up. The next Must See for me is Red Dragon with Ralph Fiennes, Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Watson, Philip Seymour Hoffman ... what a cast!

Skorpionn · 11th June 2002, 04:04 AM

It seems that ANY old movies are far better than what is being made today. One of my FAVORITE movies is Jane Eyre with Orson Welles - he was a magnificant actor, almost as good as Mr. Lee LOL. I have to admit that some of the sci-fi movies of the 50's were awful - Attack of the Killer Tomatoes - UGHH!!! I could do without the nudity in The Satanic Rites Of Dracula, but it seems to appeal to a certain percentage of the population, and so it stays with us - unfortunately.

Brandi · 11th June 2002, 12:38 PM

'Fraid I didn't like this one. Oh, Lee and Cushing were just fine, but for all of the weird subplot stuff (plagues, corporate mischief, Satanism) it was oddly... dull.

That and while there is a folkloric precedent for hawthorne as an anti-vampire weapon, watching Lee thrash around in a thornbush was just ridiculous (I found it entirely too easy to imagine him thinking 'Another take and I will KILL the director...').

**Matt Gemmell** · 11th June 2002, 01:43 PM

Noblerot , I too love horror movies .Yes there are quite a few good horror films about these days but far more rubbish .
The average horror movie today is aimed at the teenage market and mainly consists of any flimsy excuse to murder a group of teenagers .The mere thought of the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre fills me with dread . Films such as Satanic Rites , Rosemarys Baby and even The Exorcist would not get made today . At least not in the same way .Current trends dictate the storyline and method of filming .Originality seems to be stamped out of mainstream Hollywood and the movies suffer because of this .Nowadays there are no new John Carpenters , Tobe Hoopers or Wes Cravens and the thought of anyone emulating Terence Fisher is unimaginable .
Everyone's taste differs but until something comes along to rival the classics of yesteryear I stand by my claim that ( on the whole) it's instantly forgettable , conveyer belt trash . Possibly enjoyable but nothing more . I do , however , live in hope .

noblerot · 11th June 2002, 03:32 PM

Matt,

There has always been a lot of rubbish. I've seen more than my fair share of it. The worst of it is definitely the old stuff. Ed Wood wasn't alone. If you're lucky, it's so bad it's laughable. Today's rubbish is at least better made rubbish.

As for "new" John Carpenters et al. To begin with, I don't consider them old. Some of their movies are the very ones people complain about when they criticize "new" horror movies. I happen to like them, generally, but I can usually wait for the video. I'll go see Tim Burton films in the theater, though. I consider him "new". And I rather like M. Night Shyamalan. I plan to see "Signs" when it comes out later this summer.

I've seen movies recently that I feel surpass the classics of yesteryear. They're thoroughly original and exquisitely made. And like true classics, get better with subsequent viewings.

**Alfonso Casal** · 11th June 2002, 03:57 PM

Quote:

I'm not so sure that's true. I saw lots of old horror movies at the kiddie matinee. Genre movies were considered kidstuff - too much fantasy and make-believe for the sensible adults.

But, remember, many of the Hammer films were heavily censored back in the UK; and were released with the British equivalent of an "X"-rating. The Hammer films were definitely not made for a juvenile audience. At the time, that's what set them apart from the "I was a teenage. . . " (fill in the blank) and giant insect movies being made in the US.

That's just in Britain. In many European countries they were banned outright. Again, definitely not considered "kidstuff." Or, at least, not by the authorities.

**Alfonso Casal** · 11th June 2002, 05:06 PM

Quote:

That and while there is a folkloric precedent for hawthorne as an anti-vampire weapon, watching Lee thrash around in a thornbush was just ridiculous (I found it entirely too easy to imagine him thinking 'Another take and I will KILL the director...').

Regarding folklore, it appears that sometimes what Hammer 'gave' with one hand, they 'took away' with the other. The hawthorne tree in SROD and running water in DPOD showed that someone in the back office was reading their Montague Summers. But, in SROD and (I think) AD72, silver is introduced as a substance fatal to vampires. This is not only NOT in the folklore, but makes one wonder about that heavy silver ring the Count wears!

But, then again, it's a horror movie, not cultural anthropology.

**Joe Skinnell** · 11th June 2002, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Regarding folklore, it appears that sometimes what Hammer 'gave' with one hand, they 'took away' with the other. But, in SROD and (I think) AD72, silver is introduced as a substance fatal to vampires. This is not only NOT in the folklore, but makes one wonder about that heavy silver ring the Count wears!

The ring is probably made of pewter rendering it less than lethal. My wife wears nothing but pewter. Seems silver gives her an unbearable allergy to daylight................

noblerot · 11th June 2002, 05:15 PM

Quote:

But, remember, many of the Hammer films were heavily censored back in the UK; and were released with the British equivalent of an "X"-rating.

I really don't know that much about what they did in the UK. I always thought children there grew up watching Hammer films just like we did in the US.

In Pennsylvania, they showed the horror films during the kiddie matinee. Back in those days, kids went to the matinee by themselves. There'd be nary an adult in the whole theater. Oh the noise and the mess! I first saw Christopher Lee at a kiddie matinee, Dracula Has Risen From the Grave. I was about 10. It wasn't censored that I'm aware of. Lots of gore and buxom women.

**Joe Skinnell** · 11th June 2002, 05:21 PM

Can't argue with that. I grew up in Monogahela PA and the old Star Theater used to have kiddie monster mantinees all the time. Saw my first big screen Hammers there as well. I guess over here our parents were just happy to have a place to send us on the weekend to get a little peace and quiet around the house. Of course that ended when ,my kid sister would wake up screaming in the middle of the night. We now laugh about it, but the scene in DPOD when the Count is ressurrected gave her nightmares for years. Me on the other hand being a typical bloodthirsty American youth thought that scene was the D's B's.:1devil:

**Alfonso Casal** · 11th June 2002, 05:41 PM

Quote:

I really don't know that much about what they did in the UK. I always thought children there grew up watching Hammer films just like we did in the US.

In Pennsylvania, they showed the horror films during the kiddie matinee. Back in those days, kids went to the matinee by themselves. There'd be nary an adult in the whole theater. Oh the noise and the mess! I first saw Christopher Lee at a kiddie matinee, Dracula Has Risen From the Grave. I was about 10. It wasn't censored that I'm aware of. Lots of gore and buxom women.

I suppose it all goes back to the different British and American attitudes regarding 'sex' and 'violence.' 'Sex' has always been the greater taboo on this side of the Atlantic -- and American films wallow in violence. However, in the UK, the priorites of what was deemed objectionable were reversed. Although, the American attempt to ban horror comics as being dangerous to children, in the 1950s, somewhat contradicts what I just said. Then, again, maybe, comics were seen as being a purely 'children's' medium, as opposed to film. In any case, the message was the same: "Horror is bad for kids."

Moreover, the objection to horror films that one usually heard in the UK and Europe wasn't that they were 'infantile' or 'childish,' but that they were 'pornographic.' Which is to say, catering to a low taste for cheap titilation -- in this case, of a bloody variety. And that the people who frequented horror movies were as 'sick,' in their way, as people who went to 'blue movies.'

noblerot · 11th June 2002, 05:48 PM

The only movie I remember giving me trouble was Island of Terror. For days I kept checking under my bed to make sure none of those Things was hiding there. I haven't seen the film in ages but apparently it's now considered cheesy, even funny. Oh well. It sure scared me back then.

I also remember taking my little brother to see The Bride of Frankenstein. He was maybe all of 5 years old. He completely freaked out. We had to leave.

**Matt Gemmell** · 11th June 2002, 07:49 PM

A lot of interesting points have been churned up in this thread . Alfonso makes a good point with regards to censorship so let me clue you in .
In Britain most horror films from the late 60s onwards earned an X certificate which meant that if you were under 18 you were not admitted .Not with an adult ,not with a whole family of adults , you just did not get in .Whilst this had an adverse effect on youngsters ability to view such fare it did mean one thing . Horror films were rarely cut . It's only very recently that I have discovered how badly censored many of these movies were to cater for a teenage audience . Having said that I managed to sneak into most from a very early age . Being six feet tall at 14 was an advantage .
Whilst I don't want to get bogged down in the old vs new debate I think we all know the diffirence between quality and tripe . I mean we're all at this web site are'nt we . If an example would help , I think that Exorcist 3 was one of the best modern horrors as was Hellraiser and Candyman but for the life of me I can't think of any from the last 5 years .
I hear what your saying about Ed Wood and all those awful drive in movies of the 50s and 60s but we're not going to discuss things like that in the same breath as Hammer and Christopher Lee are we ?