can`t believe some of these reviews!

Reading some of these reviews it`s obvvious that some people don`t know anything about the history of Hammer films or the context with witch they were made. They were, especially the earlier ones, made on a shoestring budget and to save money they were made back to back using the same sets. Which is why you might recognise the Dracula set with the Frankenstein set. But what the Hammer films lacked in production values they more than made up for in plot and atmosphere. They also cast young directors who were keen to make a name for themselves and pushed back the boundaries of the horror genre.

Cristopher Lee`s Dracula was the first count to introduce romance/sex into the roll and this struck a chord with many a bored housewife. Also, although set in the 19th century, the films had a contemporary feel to them, which made the films even scarier because it took out the fantasist element and laid the horror at your door. Of course once Hollywood cottened on it spelled the death knell for Hammer. There was no way they could compete with lavish productions such as 'the exorcist.' However to be fair to Hollywood they do acknowledge the importance of Hammer. Tim Burton for example cast Cristopher Lee in his 'Sleepy Hollow' movie as a tribute to the British Horror studios. So please don`t dismiss these films so readily. If it weren`t for the likes of this film you wouldn`t have had a 'Friday 13th' or a 'Nightmare on Elm Street' or any other big Hollywood bloodbath.