Admirable film.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" is a rich text, which has retained interest even in a bare-bones adaptation such as Hammer's 1958 film, which succeeds largely because it cuts so much from the long book to create an exciting pacing. Plus, it had red blood and sex appeal--two things lacking from prior Dracula films. So, at least, it was a well-paced action shocker. That's not the case with this, the misnamed "The Brides of Dracula," the first of what would be eight sequels to the '58 "Dracula." Like Universal before them, which released the dull "Dracula's Daughter" (1936) after its successful 1931 adaptation, Hammer follows up its own success with a dud. In both cases, the studio writers weren't up to the task of following in the footsteps of Stoker.There's no sex appeal here despite the hints of incest and homosexuality offered by the vampires' victims. Even "Dracula's Daughter" did better in this regard. There's little blood and, for most of the runtime, no action. There's also no Dracula, nor brides of him. It's over half an hour into the film before Peter Cushing's Van Helsing appears; in the meantime, we're left with an uninteresting, unknowing female lead. There's some mystery in the beginning as to who's a vampire. There's a man who steals a ride on a carriage whose character is never adequately explained; supposedly, he hunted victims for the vampire. We later find out the second and younger of the two mystery men is the main antagonist and vampire of the story--a boyish and entirely lackluster heir to Christopher Lee. Also unlike the '58 original, which was somewhat ambiguous as to its location, "The Brides of Dracula" is firmly set in Transylvania, which is unfortunate because most of the cast is populated with Brits, including some stupid comic relief that exemplifies that British strand of humor based on class and regional accents.Cushing's Sherlock Holmes-type Van Helsing lacks his Watson (the Arthur character in the '58 film) this outing, which might be part of the reason his process of vampire hunting seems much duller than before. A local priest briefly fills this void, though. Plus, it's nearly 50 minutes into the thing before Van Helsing encounters any danger--a female vampire raising a hand from the grave despite an obvious continuity error where she opens her unbroken coffin afterwards and from a laughably shallow burial (it takes a very weak person, let alone a vampire, to struggle to emerge from that dust heap). There are a couple more action bits after this between Van Helsing and kid-vamp Baron Meinster. In these incidents, this sequel adds a bunch of new vampiric folklore to the series. Apparently, one can burn off the bite marks of vampires, thus avoiding turning into one themselves. Holy water is like acid to vampire faces. Vampire brides stand by mute and motionless when their master is getting his butt kicked by a vampire slayer and, presumably, helplessly burn to death in a windmill while humans have the gumption to make an exit. And, you can create a makeshift cross out of just about anything--even the shadow of a windmill turned at just the right angle can do the job. Hammer's vampires are wimps.(Mirror Note: On the plus side, this film does have the best mirror shot in Hammer's Dracula series: an unbroken moving-camera mirror shot not revealing the Baron's entrance through the mirror due to his lack of reflection, but behind the Gina character, as the camera moves away from the mirror.)

A sequel to 1958's seminal 'Dracula', without Christopher Lee as the main man, could very well have been doomed to failure. Initial signs weren't promising. When offered to return as Van Helsing, co-star Peter Cushing turned his nose up at the script. The subsequent various tweaks and three credited writers improved things sufficiently for him to agree to do it, but the re-writes resulted in a few flaws in an otherwise flawless film – just who was the Man In Black who ensured Marianne Danielle (Yvonne Monlaur) was abandoned at the inn (and where did he go)? Why did Marianne swiftly agree to marry Baron Meinster after previously being made very aware of his atrocities, and if Meinster could turn into a bat at will, then why was he shackled by the ankle unable to escape? Also, what happened to the vampire 'brides' at the film's close? I had, and have, the biggest crush on Yvonne Monlaur as Marianne. Her air of innocence, naivety and elegance (the character was playing a teacher of deportment after all) made a ridiculous impression on me when I first saw 'Brides' in 1980. This fact has no bearing on my opinion of the overall brilliance of this early Hammer success. Before we've begun proper, we've had stalwart Michael Ripper as a coach-master tearing through a classic, misty, desolate wilderness. We've had superstitious locals desperately afraid for their new guest, Marianne. We have the imperious, mighty Baroness Meinster (Martita Hunt) initially frightening everyone before revealing herself as a terrified, tragic figure – and her ward Greta (Freda Jackson) is wonderfully (and persuasively) deranged whilst showing unswerving loyalty to her mistress. The performances here drip with a genuine class and confidence that we actually don't actually miss Van Helsing, who doesn't appear until almost halfway through the film.In the absence of The Count, we need a nemesis for Peter Cushing's immaculate, masterly vampire Hunter. Whether Sir Lee was approached or not remains unknown, but David Peel, shorter and wearing a blond wig, more than makes up for his absence. Incredibly, Peel gave up acting after this, which is a shame. Here, he is noble and aristocratic, seductive and deadly, of imperious gaze and an intoxicating voice. Billed in America as a 'teenage vampire', Peel was actually 40 years old during filming. He is utterly brilliant in this, and his scenes are all electrifying. Only his eventual demise is slightly disappointing– no slow-motion disintegration effects here, but we do get a spectacularly over-the-top special effect when the sails of a windmill are turned (by Van Helsing in Errol Flynn mode, naturally) to form the shadow of a massive crucifix that finishes off the injured Baron.This remains a firm favourite of mine, and something I never tire of watching. The sets, the lighting, Terrance Fisher's uncluttered but inspiring direction, the cast (honourable mentions for Andree Melly and Miles Malleson), the story – it all offers something new every time. And let's not forget Meinster achieved something Dracula never did – he actually 'put the bite' on Van Helsing. His antidote to the curse still makes me wince.Lovely, stately horror from Hammer at their peak.

An excellent slice of early Hammer, showcasing all of the Gothic atmosphere we have come to expect from the company. THE BRIDES OF Dracula has a fast pace, which is somewhat unusual compared to other films of the time, but it keeps the action moving along nicely and the tension never lets up for a second. The sets for this film are excellent and the camera-work also impressive. It is an injustice to merely say that the film looks nice; it is in fact beautiful. If one film were needed to showcase Hammer horror at it's finest, then this would be it.Peter Cushing is once again superb in his role as the stern Doctor Van Helsing, courageous and brave, battling the vampires at every turn. Yvonne Monlaur is also very pretty in her role as the heroine, and is not the screaming girl we are used to seeing in some other Hammer films. She is more than adequate and quite memorable too. David Peel looks suitably handsome as the Baron, and there is something strange about him which makes him a very good vampire.There are a number of substantial supporting actors and actresses, such as Martita Hunt, a suitably fearsome old woman, and Freda Jackson who gives a performance which recalls Dwight Frye in some aspects (the manic laughter being one). Miles Malleson turns up as comic relief yet again after his role in Hammer's original Dracula, and it is always a pleasure to see Michael Ripper in a role, however small.With excellent production values, an appropriately powerful score, and some very memorable scenes, as well as a brilliant ending (truly ingenious), this film is a good, well-rounded slice of Gothic dread from Hammer. There are even some Freudian elements added into the brew. The only criticism would be that the plot is rather shallow and simple, but that doesn't detract from the film at all. A worthy sequel in every sense of the word.

Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) returns to Transylvania to battle evil Baron Meinster (David Peel), a Dracula wannabe freed from captivity by a young schoolteacher (Yvonne Monlaur). Despite the title, Dracula is nowhere to be seen in this one. Still, it works as a sequel of sorts to Hammer's 1958 Dracula because of Van Helsing being in it. Christopher Lee wouldn't return for the sequel so it had to be written with Baron Meinster in place of the Count. David Peel is a poor substitute for Christopher Lee, but thankfully the film had Peter Cushing to pick up the slack. Cushing's performance is wonderful, as are those of Martita Hunt and Freda Jackson. Terence Fisher's expert direction and the great Gothic sets make this a very enjoyable Hammer horror film that fans will love.