Very well executed

good back-story, and good acting

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

I gave this a seven because it stayed true to the Vampire theme and proved you can take it and put it anywhere and it still works. Of all places the Count comes to America inside a little burg similar to where Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best and the Donna Reed show all took place. It is a wholesome and simple evil and crime free arena where everyone trusts everyone else because everyone else does. The Count can smile, charm and schmooze like the rest of them only better because while they have heart he has will and he is able to cause a person who listens too long to him to become transfixed. This is phase two with the final phase being you donate all your blood to his worthy cause. I like the fact that they emphasize his changing abilities here (watch to see) and that his nemesis is and will always be Christ redemptive work as symbolized by the cross. The Cross is a Vampire show-stopper the one wearing or bearing it has pledged themselves to him and before the Count can have a go you must renounce the cross. Its a choice that controls it. Look for the typical portrayal of teenage America in the 1950's with mom and apple pie all over the place. You know if the Count didn't rush things he could have taken over this small town no problem. Makes you wonder how eternal evil thinking works? It doesn't! Not a bad movie to snack with but watch the tasty drink and keep it to water. For you Star Wars fans, If you stop and think about it, Vampires have been using the Jedi mind trick long before the force had it. Look into my eyes. Come to me tonight. Join me. Do as I say etc. LOL

This is not a sequel to the Bela Dracula. Actual, I re-watched the Bela Dracula and there are only a couple of parts that are great, the castle scene was one. The rest of the movie sucks, in a bad way. I also re-watched the Horror of Christoper Lee's Dracula and that movie also sucks, in a bad way. I have fond memories of watching the Hammer horror films as a kid. But watching now, the best parts are the sets/colors/cinematography and the music. The stories, dialogue, acting are all poor. Christopher Lee's first line in the movie is about, wait for it, cataloging his library. His freaking LIBRARY! Lee's acting, his dialogue are pretty freaking lame. Gary Oldman in the 1992 Dracula was great. Unfortunately, his acting was placed in a garbage cartoon comic movie with lousy actors including Anthony Hopkin, Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder and others. So, what are we left with. A patchwork of Dracula movies. Non of them great. Maybe Nosferatu the original. The 1979 remake with Klause Kinsky, I could not even watch. Maybe someone someday will make a serious Dracula movie and have Gary Oldman revise the character.Now for this movie, Leave it to Draculas Beaver, the Dracula actor is very good, but his dialogue and the story sucks. The Van Helsing character was good as well. And the girl was decent. All the other characters were just there. Nothing much happens. The movie is in black and white except for 2 seconds of blood, when one of Draculas brides gets staked. That was a nice touch. And when Dracula gets killed at the end that was decent.It's on youtube, so it's free to check out. Rating is a C, or 4 stars. Mostly for the acting. At least better acting that Chris Lee's Dracula. But the story sucked.

Dracula did indeed return in 1958, twice. The iconic vampire's reemergence was a cause for celebration, when Hammer Films released their Technicolor version of the famous tale with Christopher Lee's star-making role as the Count in "Horror of Dracula" . Vampires hadn't been very busy in the 40s and early 50s, so the revival of interest in the Undead came as a shock to moviegoers who had forgotten about Dracula and his progeny.The real "Return of Dracula" appeared on drive-in screens across the USA as either the top or bottom double bill fright feature with the sci-fi snoozer "The Flame Barrier". Those who paid any attention or were tired from making out in the back seat saw something unique in 58'. An authentic chiller about everyone's favorite vampire, Dracula. The Hammer version was killing at the box office due to Technicolor, sex, violence, enormous fangs, and blood. The understated ROD was ignored and forgotten, despite it's famous color insert showing the staking of a female vampire, the only real "shock" in the entire 77 minute running time. Ostensibly an odd remake of Hitchcock's "Shadow of A Doubt", this small fang-less film manages to invoke major creepiness from the opening titles. Francis Lederer, playing Dracula playing Cousin Bellac is one of the screen's most interesting interpreters of the character. He kills to leave his native soil and emigrate to America, for purposes all his own. His immersion into a squeaky- clean family goes without a ripple; the family simply believes he's a long lost cousin "from Europe". This notion goes a long way to dismiss Cousin Bellac's strange behavior.Lederer underplays his vampiric nature while pretending to be an artist. All artists are weird, right? The scene where his young "cousin" discovers his artistic efforts is still very, very unsettling, especially the portrait of the young girl in a coffin. Does he want her for her blood, or to be his bride? Probably both. Meanwhile, Drac is getting busy with a blind woman who cannot really tell anyone anything about her midnight lover. Virginia Vincent gives a terrific performance here, ending in her submission to vampirism and eventual destruction.Clean teens finally find out about Drac and end his reign of terror in Smalltown, USA. Didn't all 50s horror and sci-fi end this way? Still, this odd and unjustly forgotten vampire flick deserves a place in the pantheon of really great bloodsucker movies. Crisp cinematography, a really chilling performance by Lederer, and a very sullen soundtrack increase the tension here. Give it a chance, it's hard to shake off once seen.

Dracula (splendidly played with suavely sinister aplomb by Francis Lederer) leaves Europe and moves to the California suburbs. Posing as the cousin of an unsuspecting family, Dracula resumes preying on human beings for blood. Director Paul Landres, working from an absorbing script by Pat Fielder, relates the compelling story at a constant brisk pace, does an able job of creating and sustaining an appropriately spooky atmosphere (the shots of Dracula materializing out of thin air are genuinely eerie), and makes inspired use of such natural elements as fog and mist. This film further benefits from solid acting from a capable cast: Lederer clearly dominates the picture with his smooth and hypnotic presence, the lovely Norma Eberhardt as the chipper and kindly Rachel Mayberry makes for a fetching and appealing damsel in distress, plus there are sturdy contributions by John Wengraf as dedicated vampire hunter John Merriman, Gage Clarke as the jolly Reverend Doctor Whitfield, Virginia Vincent as the blind Jennie Blake, and Greta Granstedt as the sweet Cora Mayberry. Jack Mackenzie's crisp black and white cinematography boasts plenty of neat and artful fades and dissolves as well as one especially striking color shot. Gerald Fried's spirited shuddery score hits the shivery spot. Both Landres' lean straightforward style and the trim 77 minute running time ensure that this movie never becomes dull or overstays its welcome. A superior fright feature.