It's understandable that, for most modern audiences, enjoying Bela Lugosi's run as Dracula might call for a bit of an acquired taste, but you'd be lying if you said Christopher Lee's run as the Count didn't kick ass. Okay, Lugosi set the stage for all the iconography associated with Dracula, that's true. His performance is the one that everyone thinks of when they hear the vampire's name, but coming in a close second behind his performance is Lee's.
Classic British actor Christopher Lee would be the first to rise to prominence in the role after Lugosi, appearing in a rebooted series of Dracula films from Hammer Productions. Unlike the Universal Monster movies that were shepherded in by Lugosi's films, Hammer delivered the goods with an abundance of technicolor, bloodshed, and sensuality not yet seen in these films. He might have gotten his start in the 1950s, but Christopher Lee's Dracula movies have aged as elegantly and ferociously as vampires themselves.
How Christopher Lee Became Count Dracula
Sir Christopher Lee was born on May 27th, 1922 in London, England. Before beginning his career as an actor, Lee's life led him to the military. Here, he took part in a number of secretive and allegedly violent operations that would go on to inform many of his performances. Eventually, Lee did end up stepping into acting. The man would lead a long career of starring in mostly genre-based movies and is now a fan favorite in that corner of cinema. His resume includes the likes of Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, and James Bond, all of which are made better by his added, villainous presence. Before ever clutching a lightsaber or facing off against Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), Christopher Lee threw on some razor-sharp fangs and played the infamous Count Dracula.
The Legacy of 'Dracula' Leading to Christopher Lee
Before diving into what makes the Hammer Dracula movies so great, it's important to talk about who's playing the titular character first. Christopher Lee came over 20 years after Bela Lugosi set the standard for anyone playing Count Dracula moving forward. The precedent was real, but he didn't let that slow him down. Lee doesn't change too much about what made Lugosi so great in the role. He's the suave, charming Count that one would expect with such an esteemed title, but beneath that cool exterior runs a sinister air.
The biggest difference between the way that Lugosi and Lee approach the role is that the former was constrained by his era. Lugosi's Dracula never really attacks anyone on screen beyond approaching them to prepare for a bite or leaning into someone's neck for some blood. Not Christopher Lee! This guy brings real athleticism to his Dracula performance. Once he blows that chill facade, it's over. His Dracula will straight-up attack folks, sprint after his victims, and cover his face in their blood! Most actors who don the fangs keep their portrayal chill and unsettling, but Lee? This guy throws it all on the table, then flips the table and lunges after you. He's the most physical and visually engaging Count that there is. The guy is like a wild animal!
Christopher Lee's 'Dracula' Movies Keep Things Fresh
How about his movies? Well, if you're looking for a faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's original novel... you'd be hard-pressed to find one in any of his ten films (Lee played Dracula in 10 movies total, seven specifically for the Hammer series). The closest you'll find yourself to the original text would have to be the 1958 classic Dracula, known in some parts of the world as Horror of Dracula, but even that film barely scratches the surface. You know what, though? There are enough people out there trying to make a Dracula film that's true to the book! Lee's Dracula films are fun because they take the story elsewhere.
Clearly, there isn't enough content in one novel to stretch across the seven Christopher Lee/Hammer Dracula collaborations, but that's the fun in them. These movies take the idea and iconography of the character, put him in different situations, and let the audience see how things shake out. Want to see Dracula in 1970s England? Look no further than the obviously titled Dracula A.D. 1972! What about the Count intermingling with a high society cult? That'll lead you to The Satanic Rites of Dracula, still taking place in the 1970s! Want more of the classic gothic-style storytelling that goes with a Dracula tale, just without the usual Van Helsing of it all? Check out Dracula: Prince of Darkness, or Dracula Has Risen from the Grave! How about these sweet titles, too? Man, Hammer knew how to sell a movie. They also held pretty solid quality control over their films! The first in their Dracula series is definitely the best, but after that, a ranking of them is pretty interchangeable (except for Satanic Rites, that one can be a bit of a slog).
Hammer Horror Movies Are a Feast For the Eyes
The Christopher Lee Dracula movies aren't just fun because they like to put the Count in a new fresh scenario with each film, they're visually incredible. Their gothic architecture, crumbling castles, and decrepit caverns are always a feast for the eyes, particularly for those who enjoy old-school horror. It's part of the appeal of Universal's Dracula movies! Their black-and-white nature mixed with foggy, cobweb-laden sets make for some of the coolest visuals in movie history. That being said, by the time Hammer was making their own monster movies, technicolor filmmaking was in full swing, and boy did they take advantage of that. Visually, these movies are vibrant and alive. Not to the level of Giallo, but definitely in a way that feels like you're in a heightened, gothic world of bloodsucking vampires.
Christopher Lee's 'Dracula' Movies Were Ahead of Their Time
It's a testament to the time these movies were made in, but you can also feel the heavy introduction of blood to be a byproduct of how colorful it would be on screen. These aren't Saw movies or anything, but Hammer horror pushed the envelope for the level of violence that was acceptable at the time. Stakes get rammed into vampires' chests, people get their blood sucked, and all other sorts of fun, nasty, vampire shenanigans! Hammer knew what the people wanted, and that was to see the furthest the Dracula envelope could get pushed. They also could read the sensual subtext of Bram Stoker's original work. Count Dracula and vampires in general are predatory in their lust for blood, but the filmmakers also show this through his sexually hostile actions. It's a clever way of making his evil vampiric nature clear if he is preying on humans in more ways than just the fantastical. These movies really were ahead of their time.
Christopher Lee's Dracula movies aren't necessarily the scariest or most iconic, but if you're looking for the movies that'll deliver the most on the things that the Count is known for, these will be your best bet. They're just chilly enough to be a coffin load of fun, but not enough to where you'll be traumatized. If anything, think of these movies kind of like the 60s and 70s Bond movies. You'll have your standouts here and there, but more than anything, you know what level of fun you're getting with each entry. They're always quality, and even more consistently deadly. Yeah, Christopher Lee never took the throne from Bela Lugosi, but he sure did kick more ass than his predecessor.