It's Hammer time, Everyone! There's no other place to start than Hammer Studio's first color horror movie The Curse of Frankenstein. For anyone unfamiliar to Hammer Studios, it's a film production studio in England that may or may not be still active. It was hard to tell if it was after the early 70s. This is the film that got Hammer onto every horror fan's radar in the late 50s. There is so much about this movie and it's sequels that separates it from the Universal Frankenstein series. For one thing, this series focuses on Victor Frankenstein and has him create a new monster in each sequel. It's because of this that I mostly just care about the first film. Another thing that makes this classic film different is the design of the monster, it's smaller but a more grotesque monster. This time Frankenstein's creation is called "the creature." The reason all these changes were made is, according to some, that Hammer was afraid that Universal was going to file a lawsuit. One thing Hammer is known for is taking a classic story and adapting it very loosely. They would do this a couple more times with their adaptations of Stoker's Dracula and Guy Endore's The Werewolf of Paris. 

The choices of actors are legendary in the history of horror cinema. Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee would be paired together in a few more Hammer classics after this. A Frankenstein film in color was something nobody could come up with at the time it seems. However, director Terence Fisher needed a way to make it work and he did. The design of Frankenstein's lab looks so crude and yet attractive to the viewers. All those bottles of red fluids and glass containers of bubbling water feels so genuine when watching Cushing's Frankenstein at work. 

Horror of Dracula (1958)

This is not only Hammer at its finest and one of the best Dracula adaptations, but also one of the best vampire movies ever made. If you don't believe me, check out Watchmojo's "Top 10 Greatest Vampire Movies" and you'll see that I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Speaking of adapting Stoker's book, this doesn't really take that much from the original story. Dracula doesn't even shape-shift like he does in the book. Nevertheless, Christopher Lee knocks it out of the park with his most iconic role here. Unfortunately for him, it wouldn't be the last time that he would be asked, sometimes begged, to play the part. At least Peter Cushing never complained about being Van Helsing, and that's because he was the best actor to play as the famous vampire hunter. Overall, this is a must-watch for horror and vampire fan alike... 

Brides of Dracula (1960)

This is a sequel that I consider to be a little underrated, and when I say underrated I mean that it wasn't given enough attention as it should have. Major Hammer fans would already know about this film pretty well. For those who are not familiar, the first thing you should know about is that Christopher Lee's Dracula is not in here (obviously you can tell by the poster I put in here) but Cushing's Van Helsing is continuing his work trying to root out the vampire "cult." The head vampire that he goes after this time is one of Dracula's disciples. The use of technicolor is still spot on, one of Hammer's best qualities in their horror films. The set designs, especially the castle, is just as good if not better than Horror of Dracula. This is definitely worth watching right after the first film. 

Psycho (1960)

When watching this for the first time, it may seem like any other Alfred Hitchcock thriller, but this one will surprise you later on. Yes it's psychological, but it's become more than that over the decades. There is very few Hitchcock films I've watched over the years but I can safely say that this film is in his top three. I am among those who consider this to be the first slasher film. Norman Bates is one of the most popular character studies in all of thriller/horror cinema. The study is less on his personality and more on what goes on inside his mind. Does Norman Bates count as being a serial killer? The answer is yes. However, he would not be fit to stand trial because of his mental illness. In this movie, what he has can be defined as a dual personality disorder. If you read the book, you would know that he has three different personalities.

The Curse of the Werewolf (1961)

SPOILER ALERT

First of all, I want to say that this film didn't get enough attention as it should have. Sure, it wouldn't go into the top 10 best werewolf movies, but it's worth watching at least once in a lifetime. Just to give you a little background information. this is very loosely based on a novel titled "Werewolf of Paris" by Guy Endore. Instead of taking place in France, the setting is in Spain. Not only that, but most if not all of the names were changed. As far as the premise goes, it partly follows from the book. A young girl gets raped (not shown on screen) and gives birth to a son who becomes a werewolf in a slightly unusual way. Instead of being bitten, he is turned by being bound to some spirit from birth. The soul and the spirit would constantly be at war, and the main character Leon would transform whenever the unwanted spirit would win over the body, usually at the full moon. 

I have to say that I like the book better, because the story is so much more complex than the simple concept of the movie. In the book, there's war, politics, and one man constantly battling his animal impulses. It has rape, incest, people getting torn apart. One thing that I like about the film is the choice of actors and the romantic chemistry that their characters bring. Love was the only thing that could have kept the werewolf in check and it was love that gave his surrogate father figure the strength to release him of his curse. 

Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)

There's a few reasons why you can't find this sequel on any digital platform such as VUDU or Amazon Prime Video. The first being that it takes a while for Dracula to be resurrected, and believe me when I say that he always finds a way to come back. It will either be by his own will or from one of his acolytes. In this case, it's his servant who brings him back, who we didn't see in the first film. When it comes to Dracula and other monster movies, continuity is hardly ever a priority. One he does come back he doesn't say a single word throughout the whole movie. If you look up the IMDb trivia for this movie, it says that Christopher Lee claimed that he didn't like the script he was given, so he refused to speak any dialogue. The screenwriter said that Mr. Lee ''misremembered'' this and that it was he that written Dracula without any dialogue. Regardless, this has all the good elements of a Dracula movie. This includes his castle, scared villagers (even before he was resurrected and they knew he was dead), and a heroic expert in vampirism. Just so you know, this is the last Dracula film directed by the great Terence Fisher. 

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

This is it, the first of George Romero's Zombie masterpieces: Night of the Living Dead. Just like when John Carpenter created the common slasher elements with Halloween (1978), Romero created the common elements of the Zombie sub genre. Before this, zombie movies involved necromancers or Voodoo priests reanimating dead bodies through the use of dark magics. George Romero was able to give it a new twist. Nowadays, zombies can be created through radiation or some super virus. In this first installment of the Romero series, they aren't even labeled as "zombies." They're repeatedly called ghouls by the newscasters on the radio and television. 

The keyword for the modern zombie is "survival" the characters that are still alive here want to do anything to remain that way. It doesn't take long for two people to start arguing over what they should do next or how they should stay alive. Eventually, people will start dividing into their own groups and doing things their own way. The first prime example of this is Mr. Cooper who wants his family to remain downstairs in the cellar. He just goes on and on how that is the safest place and ironically it eventually becomes just that for the one character who didn't think it wasn't safe. George Romero demonstrates what human beings will ultimately do in such a situation like this: disagree and try to take things for themselves. 

Dracula Has Risen From the Grave (1968)

Dracula just seems to be a side character in this entry to the series. The main focus is on a slightly troubled family that evolves around the niece of a monsignor and her atheist boyfriend. It's only after he defeats Dracula where he finds his faith. A common excuse for atheists to not believe is because evil exists in the world. "If there's a God, why is the world riddled with evil?." It's because evil eventually brings out the greatest good, and that's exactly what happened with Paul here. Friendly warning: Hammer likes to name their protagonists "Paul" in a good number of their films.  

Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)

Spoiler Alert

Just by looking at the title, you can tell that this is one of those sequels that seems both unnecessary and "an uneven entry in the series" -James Rolfe. The premise appears unique at first, with those three men who are bored enough to take part in the resurrection of Dracula. Of course, they are ignorant/blind to what they were really doing. They were being used by one of his followers who also just so happens to be a satanist. One thing that I'm now surprised at is how Dracula even bothers to avenge one of his servants. The "real" Dracula could have easily tossed him aside if he had a whim to. In fact, he eventually does that with the women he was using. The first one, Lucy, he drains to death and he admits to the other "I have no further use for you." He avenges his male servant but disregards the female ones! Makes him appear so sexist doesn't it?

The Vampire Lovers (1970)

Despite all the other weak adaptations of Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla, this Hammer film is truly the definitive one. Not only does it capture the book's gothic scenery, but it helps the book become a study in the LGBTQ+ community nearly a century later and up until today. Bram Stoker himself even admitted that he was inspired by Fanu's book, and you can see why if you read it. There's the ruined castles sure, but Vampire Lovers managed to use that familiar element of superstitious villagers and other characters. Having a count or countess as the vampire is something put into Stoker's work as well. I could look for more similarities, but that could take forever. In short, if you want the only good adaptation of Fanu's greatest story, stick with this movie. Forget that web series and 2019 film!

Honorable Mention: Jess Franco's Count Dracula (1970)

Not one of the best Dracula adaptations, but at least they matched the Count's look with his description from the book. They never got Christopher Lee shapeshifting into a bat in the Hammer films, so that was new. I would only recommend this if you are a die-hard fan of the book. 

Scars of Dracula (1970)

This was Hammer's first attempt to reboot the Dracula series. To some degree, they did a pretty decent job. True, it didn't offer anything new, but it Hammer knew what a Dracula movie should look like. His castle looks more gothic than ever, even when the top half of it is burned down by pissed off villagers. The plot slightly touches on events from the novel, such as Dracula welcoming a guest in his castle and him climbing up the wall of it. It's less of a reboot and more of a tribute to Dracula movies in general. 

Dracula A.D. 1972