Rasputin the Mad Monk - Hammer Films

Hammer Films - Don Sharp (1966)

Necro Rating - 78.57%

The disappointing thing about Rasputin the Mad Monk is that it fails to capitalise on the fullness of the legend. As a standalone film, it is exciting and interesting. But when compared to what 'actually' happened, the film seems to lack much throughout the plot, and the ending seems very anti-climatic. It also is very dependent on the generic Hammer plot device of hypnosis. Nevertheless, it is not fair to judge it too harshly against the events of 'real life' as it is a piece of cinematic entertainment, not a documentary.

The film has 'Hammer' stamped all over it. The luscious sets and the rich colouring add up to make it look like a painting (as we have said before and shall continue to do so).

The film was focused very hardly on the character of Rasputin, and if that comes as a surprise to you, you are a bit of an idiot. This meant that the character development of the other characters did suffer slightly at his expense. Admittedly, most of the other characters were superfluous. As with the plot, it is a shame that the development of Rasputin didn't go further, as a cursory glance at his history shows that there was much material that could have been drawn upon. This does all seem to be very critical, so we feel it is necessary to emphasise that the character of Rasputin was both convincing and effective.

The script was atmospheric, and we have sampled a couple of lines on our radio show. It complimented the acting well. Lee's classic 'sharp-hand-movements' and powerful vocal delivery are superbly used. Barbara Shelley was as good as ever, but Suzan Farmer's role was disappointingly small.

In conclusion, this film is flawed genius.

Dracula Prince of Darkness - Hammer Films

Hammer Films - Terence Fisher (1966)

Necro Rating - 85.71%

One may be forgiven for thinking, having read the previous two reviews, that we are impossible to please. This is untrue, and is proven so by the genius that is Dracula Prince of Darkness.

The usual Hammer style is in place, which always makes for an enjoyable film. The beautiful Eastman colouring makes the viewer feel as if they are looking at a moving painting. Modern films suffer because of their realism; the way that they are shot removes the feeling that one is watching something special. Some may criticise elements such as the 'night' shots, but these lo-fi techniques are part of the charm of a good Hammer film, and the bright red blood etc work in a similar way. One of the best elements of these films are the seemingly extravagant sets, which (coupled with the Eastman colouring) make it seem like a piece of fine art. The effective use of miniatures and studio create an extremely satisfying result.

The script is acceptable, though there is an important point to make here. St Sangster's script was so bad that Lee refused to speak any of his lines (and we wish he had taken a similar stance on the Satanic Rites of Dracula among others). Without Lee's beligerance, this film would have seriously suffered.

We believe that the lack of dialogue is one of the most effective things about this film as it places more pressure on the performance of the actors. Lee is superb (as usual), as is Andrew 'Quatermass' Keir, who plays an unreformed Van Helsing figure. Barbara Shelley is as good as ever, but Suzan Farmer stands out as one of Hammer's best girls. She portrays her character convincingly as cute and demure, and it is a shame that this charming actress did as few films with Hammer as she did. Klove was convincingly grim, and the two husbands did their thing well enough. Though the ham-quota is typically high, it made a number of scenes stand out more; for example, the scene where Suzan Farmer and her husband confront Lee and Barbara Shelley. Even more so than this is the crowning moment of the film, where Klove uses Shelley's husband to resurrect Lee. The clanking sound, and general aesthetic of the scene make this one of Hammer's few genuinely creepy scenes. Any dialogue here would have destroyed the grimness. This resurrection scene is not even trumped by that in Dracula AD 1972.

The plot is satisfying, one of Hammer's better Dracula's, and the inconsistencies (such as two monks restraining a vampire...) do not detract from this. The addition of the Ludwig/Renfield character was a nice touch, considering his absence from 1958s Horror of Dracula. This film is well worth seeking out as it is both one of Hammer's most enjoyable Dracula's and stand alone films.