Fuck OFF

Me? Review THIS dreck? This isn't 'so bad it's good' it's just eye-gouging, wrist-slitting, aspyhxiatingly stupendously fucking stupid. All involved in this movie should be rolled in scalding hot tar, covered with feathers, have their mouths sewn shut and be ordered to whistle. Every time you entertain the notion of seeing this, a puppy dies a painful death. Please. Think of the puppies.

Not anemic but not full-blooded either

Technically, Masterpiece Theatre's Dracula (made exclusively to television by BBC in 2006) would have been a miserable failure- it's too short, it glosses over several important factors and it's quite an unusual piece to be released by the normally prestigious production company. However, what ultimately saves it (and us) is that it takes a deliberate step to deviate from the tale with some compelling performances to back it up. In my personal opinion, this may have worked better if this production was a sequel rather than a proclaimed 'faithful' and truncated version of the tale.

Rather than focus on the supernatural elements of the story (which are still there), Dracula turns it into a drama that focuses on the Victorian anxieties of disease, sex, loss and personal shame, and all of these things are compounded by the arrival of Dracula himself. The handsome Arthur Holmwood is about to marry his beloved Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles), but he is petrified to consumate their marriage due to the fact that he has syphilis. He is desperate to find a way to remedy this and resorts to extreme measures that even he cannot fully understand. Young Mina and newly-appointed solicitor Jonathan Harker have just been married but Jonathan must leave at once for Transylvania to close an important business deal with the elusive Count Dracula, leaving Mina alone and uncertain of what has become of her husband. Doctor John Seward, who has for a long time adored Lucy feels bitter that she chose Arthur to be her husband despite their long term friendship. All of these characters are in an unenviable state that only gets worse upon the arrival of Dracula.

When Bram Stoker wrote his magnum-opus, scandalous and provocative things were known but were never discussed freely. It is this element of fear being like a dark, unknown and forbidden abyss that is personified by Dracula- nobody knows what he is, or where he truly came from. There are theories, and only physical facts but no actual wisdom about him. I don't want to give away an important plot point in the case of this production, but let's just say Van Helsing is not so much an esteemed professor on the matter- he is as much a victim of Dracula as anybody else is. Stoker was very well aware of how his fellow humans felt at the time, and he addressed this by creating a fictional agent to reflect it. 2006 Dracula keenly addresses this, though it never shoves it in your face and rubs it in. The entire production plays out a little like a fever dream- you can certainly feel the sensation of something being wrong, but it is hidden behind a dreamy masque. It would almost be erudite were it not for the fact it never truly reaches the potential.

                                                   Plus the fanfiction kinda writes itself...

Make no mistake, the repressed sexual desire is there, as is an at times, dreamy atmosphere, but these elements don't combine the way they should have. As I said, what saves it from drifting into complete incomprehension are the actors and their approach to their roles.
The ever ravishing Sophia Myles, in my mind, makes for a perfect Lucy- charming and likeable but with a highly palpable sensuality that emanates from her even before she becomes fangy. Her chemistry with Stephanie Leonidas (Mina) is very sweet and convincing. You can see why all of the men adore her (which in turn will make you adore her also). By the way, her intimate scene with Dracula is HOT. Stephanie Leonidas keeps Mina real, but at times, she allows hysteria to become her leading emotion when it feels a little forced. But that's just me. Tom Burke is an interesting young actor with a fascinating face and he embodies Seward's personal bitterness as well as his desire to be the best man of medicine he can be. Dan Stevens is incredibly handsome and he makes for a good choice of this version of Arthur Holmwood. He may not be to everybody's tastes, but he takes on the material the best he can. David Suchet is quite a unique Van Helsing. I'll leave that up to you to see for yourself.

                                                     Sophia Myles: Happy now?

So where does this leave Marc Warren? The guy isn't the embodiment of Dracula as we know him, but this version of the Count has been written to be more of an insinuating menace than an overt one. He is also quietly predacious. Warren's stature is not upfront intimidating, but he doesn't try to be, instead, he uses it to his advantage, especially when it comes to his more intense scenes. The man can just stand there and stare at you with his piercing ice blue eyes and you know a world of hurt and Hell will come upon you. He isn't what you'd call traditionally handsome (thank God for that), but like BBC's other Dracula, Louis Jourdan, he is still very sexy in how he carries himself. His forthright nature, his animalistic attributes, his growly, intimate tone, it works beautifully for him because those are his strengths and he plays to them like a champion. He reminds me of a younger and leaner Malcolm McDowall- that's a compliment. The only thing that worked against him was his 'Old Dracula' make up- Warren, despite his angular features still has a youthful look and you can still see that through all the prosthetics and aged make up he wears when we first see him, and the wig, heh, well.

                                                 
All in all, 2006's Dracula still would have worked as a sequel rather than another re-telling- it has a solid bunch of ideas and an awareness of the time period, a competent cast and a dangerous sexuality lurking beneath it, but it never quite delivers because it never knows quite what it can be. I wanted very much to love this version, but all I could do was like it. I'm not saying that is a bad thing in itself, but when you have all of that great material and you don't use it to maximum effect, why bother showing it at all?

                                       Marc Warren- BECAUSE IT'S MY BLOG, DAMN IT.

Love Never Dies... neither does a damn fine pimpsuit!

There really is something to be said about a horror film that not only broke the box office but saved a studio from going under as well as launching several fledgling acting careers. Francis Ford Coppola set out to release a film based off Bram Stoker's novel which turned into a dazzling and sexy magic show. Back in 1992, one year before 'Jurassic Park' CGI as we know it was still in it's infancy and film makers still relied on human ingenuity to create something awesome. Given Coppola is one of the old school film makers who grew up in an artistically inclined family, his vision of Dracula is still considered to be one of the best versions ever. Is it, though? Here's what I think.

I would generally agree with the positive consensus of this film- it really is an exercise in visual artistry with a flair for story-telling accompanied by lavish costumes, a grand orchestral score and a sweeping feel to it. It's what I consider to be an enchantment style film. It may not please all tastes, but there is no denying it's eye-popping. Coppola obviously took great measures to see the world of Dracula to be successfully and memorably translated on screen and even now, it still looks and sounds amazing. The opening 'puppet show' of Vlad Dracul owning the Turks to this day still looks magical, and you don't even see any gory details. It should be worth noting that in addition to a gifted selection of creative artists, Coppola's son Roman had an active role in bringing many of the visual wonders to life in this movie. Neopotism isn't always a bad thing. People say that too much attention went to the visuals, but I disagree, as you shall see...

                                                               Renovator's dream!

In addition to the inanimate visual splendor, we also get some rather compelling performances. It goes without saying that Gary Oldman as Dracula himself is a standout- we all know how great an actor he can be, and although this was relatively early in his mainstream career, we see the genesis of a gifted actor who can do wonders with what could have been a one dimensional part. He can be disturbing, eerie, off-putting and vindictive, but at the same time he can be sensual, emotional and erotic. Winona Ryder once said that during a take of Mina hearing Dracula off-screen, Oldman was saying some rather sexually explicit things to her that she just couldn't get out of her head even to this day. Lucky cow.

The other actor who goes toe to toe with Oldman is the ever-reliable Anthony Hopkins as the fox-crazy Van Helsing. While the role of Renfield is played reliably by musician Tom Waites, Hopkins makes Van Helsing almost certifiable were it not for the fact he is respected for his boarder psychosis. Toward the end of the film when he and his cadre of Victorian vampire hunters are tracking the Count down, Mina accurately observes that he admires Dracula, and wouldn't you know it? While he doesn't say upfront he does, he doesn't deny it either. Hopkins' Van Helsing isn't Peter Cushing, Edward Van Sloan or any other actor that comes to mind when it comes to that role- he truly is a unique intereptation. Some people find him totally over the top, but really, when it comes to Dracula was is over the top? When you take into account the shape shifting, blood drinking, woman-stealing, disease-spreading character of Dracula, what harm can an equally insane adversary pose to the overall picture?

                                                                Trust me. I'm Dutch.

Another actor I must mention was Sadie Frost as the... shall we say, liberal Lucy Westenra. While at heart Lucy is a good person, her ways are quite overt when it comes to the affairs of love and lust. While some may argue Frost's portrayal is a little too overt, remember, this is Coppola giving his own take on a tale that has already seen so many transformations. A lot of this movie it concerned with the inevitable connection between sex (or death as the case might be with vampires) and death (or life in terms of how alive sex makes you feel). When it comes to memorable, Frost has this character in the bag- she can be so sweet and charming but at the same time sexually aggressive, and this is before she is transformed. Dare I say it, but when you see her in the same scene as Winona Ryder, you kinda forget Ryder is there because of how magnetic she is.

In saying that, and you know this was coming, the weakest link in this entire cast was Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker, Mina's impotent husband to be. I know Coppola was angling to get the teenage girls into the theater with this stunt casting, but in this case, it just doesn't work. Seeing him fumble through his dialogue trying to adopt an upper-crust English accent makes you shake your head and think "Why, Francis, why?" In my eyes, I think the women were more than spoiled when Oldman's Dracula sauntered across the screen, I know I was. The only time which Reeves seriously emoted was when he was being raped by Dracula's Brides (yes, he is being raped, it happens!), but even then, we are treated to an unflattering shot up Reeves' nose as he screams in terror. 

                                                                      Sex Offenders.

(Note: I personally can't fault Reeves as a person, he's actually meant to be a really nice, humble guy, I love you Keanu, I just don't like it when you push yourself too far without direction)

Now, I am a fan of Winona Ryder as an actress, I've enjoyed quite a few of the movies she has made, but here... I dunno, her career was a fledgling, I understand that, but I didn't buy her ultimately as Dracula's One True Love. Oh, she tries, she tries as hard as she can, and she is hardly an offense to watch, but I think it was because of her slight inexperience (and her somewhat mangled English accent) that didn't sway me that this was the woman Dracula would cross oceans of time to be reunited with. As I said, during her scenes with Sadie Frost, the audience naturally gravitated toward Frost's character more than Mina's because of her fire. While Mina is meant to be the opposite to Lucy in terms of behavior, she should still have had that unmistakable passion within her that would attract Dracula.

I also feel compelled to bring up the ornate and lavish costumes that complement their surroundings and the actors who wear them. Eiko Ishioka's costumes are more works of art than functioning and realistic clothing, but by gum they are glorious. Dracula goes through quite a few wardrobe changes, each of them suitably bizarre, but they match what the character is all about. You would think you are surveying an upper-end Eastern-European-Asian art exhibition because of how detailed and cross-continental they look. Another artistic wonder is the music score by Wojciech Kiljar, I'm shocked and almost appalled this score did not earn an Oscar nomination or a win for that matter because it truly encompasses what we witness on screen. I have a copy of the CD itself and it's perhaps one of the most played in my collection. It weaves it's Gothic siren song throughout every nook and cranny of your ears and imagination. It truly is a gorgeous and artful score, a personal favourite of mine is 'Vampire Hunters'- just you try listening to it and not feel the mounting tension of tracking down a supernatural fiend.

In closing, I should say that perhaps the biggest flaw is the dreary performance of Reeves as well as the audience's own refusal to fully embrace this glorified carnival show (I use that term with all good intention and admiration). It truly does depend on how you like your Dracula and how much you are willing to permit yourself to enjoy a done-over tale. This movie really could have been a massive disaster, but even now, it has many fans and it constantly gains more. It's really too early to say that this film will truly last the test of time, but it is first and foremost out to entertain those who are willing to give themselves over. They really don't make Dracula like this any more, despite the countless imitators and I feel it should be admired and appreciated for the things it strove fiercely to accomplish rather than simply being called a blockbuster three ring circus filled with clowns and no ringmaster. This film is more than that, and I hope if you haven't seen it yet, or if you are reconsidering to see it again you will be able to see a little more of the awesome than the suck. And even if you don't like it, don't ruin it for us who do. :-D

                                                 OBLIGATORY PIMP SUIT SHOT AHOY.

Frank(ly) Sexy

While like Glenn Beck, I don't have any actual substansive evidence to prove this, in 1979, Frank Langella fathered many children and didn't even know it because of his role in this movie. I'm not going to waste time by bitching about how inaccurate this film is, partly because it has the same source material as Lugosi's 'Dracula' (Balderston and Dean's stage play), and also because it takes away from the fact that this rendition of Dracula is disgustingly sexy without being disgusting, and most of it is indeed due to Langella's peformance itself. If you were born in 1979 and there on wards, you can bet at one point or another your mum watched this movie. In his prime, with his seductive barritone voice, brown eyes, dark skin, full lips and overall dashing presence, you would have to be blind, stupid and unspeakably fucking foolish not to deny that this man could inspire questionable thoughts in women. Speaking of the character himself, not once does he make an OSHIT or RapeFace, nor does he show any fang due to the fact Langella requested Dracula to not have any of those token trappings. In my estimation, it was a risky task, but it worked because you focus more on his performance than merely his looks. Dracula is still a predator through and through, and when you look at Langella's eyes in particular, you see something insane and compelling inside of them, especially in an early scene when he pays particular attention to both Lucy and her fragile friend Mina (Jan Franis) .

                                                                     Game Over.

Frank Langella had already played the role of the Count on stage for some one hundred performances, each receiving great reviews, so it seems like a no-brainer that director John Badham decided to translate his performance onto the big screen alongside a competent cast of other theatre actors. Let me just say this now- this isn't a horror movie at all, yes, there is some nasty sights (a certainly family reunion being one of them), but this at it's core is a love story that can transcend any translation of language because it's themes resonate. Vivacious 'modern woman' Lucy (Kate Nelligan who we just don't see enough of these days) is not just the object of Dracula's desire, but also his adoration. He doesn't just see her as a snack, he sees her as a mate, and the moment he claps eyes on her, you know he will stop at nothing to have her, despite the fact Lucy is engaged to Jonathan (Trevor Eve). It really is a melodramatic convention, but when you have charismatic actors like these, you can forgive that element easily. It also doesn't hurt that you have two old school Hollywood stalwats Donald Plesance (who plays a bumbling yet well-meaning Doctor Seward) and Sir Laurence Olivier (delivering Van Helsing's Dutch accent).

               We interrupt this Langella-Lovefest with an splendid matte painting by
                                                             Albert Whitlock.

What I appreciate the most about this film is how tenderly it was handled- these days a story like this would have had an overload of sex and other excesses just because it's Dracula (come on, you know it to be true) but here, it focuses more on the characters and their feelings rather than simply their actions. Lucy isn't a fool when she is in love- she retains her individuality and she falls for Dracula of her own accord, despite her betrothal. This is certainly infidelity, but we get to know Lucy's mind, and when Dracula enters her world, he represents something she truly wants- freedom, independent though and the right to choose, not the tight constraints of society telling her what to do. In an essence, this Dracula film is undoubtedly more for the women- it centers around what the women desire, not what the men want. Granted, some feminists may say that Dracula still has some degree of control over her, but I would contend that not once does he force himself on her. In fact, he warns her, that if she does not like his company, she would only have herself to blame because if she walks away, he would be sad if she did. Okay, it's a mawkish piece of dialogue, but when Langella says it, the message is genuine- come to me of your own free will, I cannot make you, but remember you must hold yourself accountable for your actions. This is also an allegory that at one point or another, everybody falls for somebody who they know deep down is bad for them, but they can't resist them and so they are willing to go on that path. In the case of Lucy, she genuinely feels that her undead suitor could be The One and he is all too happy to live up that.

                                            Boomkat thinks: Did I just walk in on a porno set?

On a technical basis, this film basically has all of the token trappings of cinema from that era so one can certainly expect some visual cheesiness. It is pretty hard not to smirk when you watch the lighting scheme by Maurice Binder being used in an otherworldly love scene, because you automatically think of a James Bond movie when you see it. Another thing that somewhat stood out like a sore toe on an ogre was some of the use of music. I have nothing against the score itself, it is a rather nice one, but there are times of which it is used inappropriately at particular points that it takes you out a little. Add to that Langella's rather.... wild hair. I love me some serious man-mane, but I have no idea what the stylist was thinking when they did Langella's hair. He was a very handsome man back in the day (and I think he's a lot sexier than Sean Connery as an older dude. YES I SAID IT!) and since this film had more of an idealistic female gaze it wouldn't have hurt if they really made Langella up to look like a sex bomb. BUT THAT'S JUST ME.
A minor performance quibble I have: With every respect to Eve as an actor, I know Jonathan really had no hope of winning Lucy back by Dracula on his own, but I really wanted Eve to make his character more active when it came to fighting the Count for her. He was far too passive, he really did nothing but glare at Dracula and occasionally shot verbal barbs about him to Lucy, but not once did he try to confront Dracula head on about trying to steal his wife to be. I know he's Dracula and all, but you gotta at least try, bro.

While this certainly isn't the movie to watch if you are itching for a blood and tit fest, if you are in the mood for some cuddling and illusions of sweet romance, this is the movie for you. Make no mistake that this movie was certainly made in the 70's and it is an adaptation of a stage play (some of the 'bigness' of the acting will obviously give that away) but this is certainly one of the most respectable versions of Dracula out there. No, it doesn't follow the traditional formula, but it just might be enough to get you laid and we know love is what makes the world go round.



Trivia: A small piece of my boring biography here- when my mum was 8 months pregnant with me, my father worked night shifts at the prison, and mum, being pregnant and all, wanted company while her husband was out, so she invited a friend over to watch 'Dracula' with her. Like so many women, mum got goo-goo eyed for Langella the moment he appeared on screen. For the rest of her pregnancy, she didn't have any morning sickness or pregnancy related complaints. 

Death is cruel to the unsuspecting, immortality is unbearable to the knowing

While ostensibly a remake, Werner Herzog's 'Nosferatu The Vampyre' is actually an art form masquerading as a horror. True, there is a sense of true dread permeating in every frame, but it's not so much dread of a superficial movie sense, instead, it's a dread that strikes close to home for every viewer. We are not afraid of death itself, but of the anticipation of it, what the circumstances will be and how we will go out. Herzog explores this fundamental human fear by personifying it in the form of his greatest muse and dearest enemy, Klaus Kinski. When the film opens, we see upfront we are in for one Hell of a depressing yet morbidly beautiful ride, in this case, we are treated to a lingering shot of the Mummies of Guanajuato to the soundtrack of Popol Vuh, a musical motif that will come back to haunt you as the film goes on. It's a simplistic scene, but it never fails to send a slight shiver down your spine because you are looking at real dead people of all ages, frozen in time, looking eerily like porcelain dolls.

                                                        Literally the first thing you see

Although I for the most part find arthouse films utterly pretentious, there are also a few out there that defy convention and actually have a story to tell, 'Nosferatu' being one of them. I know how bias that sounds, but one only needs to watch this film in it's entirety, on their own, without anybody gabbing in their ear to get an appreciation for it. While it is mainly a piece of art visually, the actors aren't left in the dust, rather, they are part of the picture. It also helps that while Kinski's Count Dracula is an abomination to behold, Isabelle Adjani  has the presence of a woman in a Waterhouse painting- visually flawless, untouchable but vulnerable. It is these two characters that act as the primary contrast between the beautiful yet ultimately fragile mortal life (Adjani) and bitter immortality (Kinski). The motifs of life and death are heavy in this movie, but I personally found it was these two actors who brought this notion truly close to the heart. When Dracula sees how indisputably devoted to Jonathan Lucy is, Dracula wishes to take part in such love, but she refuses him, saying nothing on this Earth could make her leave Jonathan's side for him, not even death itself. Just as Murnau's original did, Herzog chooses to deviate from the story, using the same plot points, characters are much the same in terms of their relationships, I find that Herzog's version is thematically and dramatically stronger, all the while not pissing on Murnau's work. Rather than trying to top what Murnau did, or insult the film maker's work for that matter, Herzog is paying respect to it. Neither version is better than the other per se, just different, and it is this difference that makes Herzog's version shine.

                                                         "I hate it when you do that!"

Despite this film having a general grounding in human reality, Herzog wisely incorporates the deathly mysticism of death, through not only Dracula himself, but also his effect on the living. You see, Dracula is Death who can't die by his own hand, and thus, the only thing he can do is keep himself existing by feeding on the weak. In order to do this, he travels with armies of plague rats, wherever he goes, they go and disease and death result. Although Dracula is a powerful and encompassing being, he is also pathetic to the very core, and he knows it. He doesn't embrace what he is with feverent passion, he is all to aware that he is not meant to be on this Earth as there really is no place for him. While he may not be truly inevitable as death itself, he is indiscriminate like an illness that will only stop when he is exterminated. One could say that the rats are his preferred company because they too are seen commonly as vermin and undesirable by the living. In a spectacularly disturbing yet simultaneously beautiful sequence, Adjani's Lucy stumbles through her town square watching the townsfolk celebrate their inevitable death by reveling like they truly are going to die tomorrow. She sees formally set dinner tables laden with food with rats crawling over them, people are joining hands and chanting festive songs, one man even tries to mount a goat, all because they know this is the end. Herzog affirms that when people can no longer panic about the inevitability death, all they can do is embrace it.

Ahhh, but we do need a bit of levity. Perhaps one of the most fantastic and astounding portrayals of Renfield can be found here in the form of Roland Topor. I honestly haven't seen anything else by this guy, but damn is he ever the gleefully endearing maniac. You hate Topor's stupid giggle and idiotically optimistic face for about five minutes before you end up loving him. So devoted he is to Dracula, so much like a dog, unconditionally loving yet afraid, he even rubs himself against his master while whining like a puppy. He literally lives to serve this freak of nature It's unlike anything you have ever seen, seriously. Well, perhaps in high school.

To my mind, there have been many reviews before me who have written up this film who have done it more justice than I have, but if you still need some convincing, all I can say is that this film is a beautiful nightmare in motion that will likely draw you in like a fly in a web slowly succumbing to the spider's venom and there is nothing you can do to escape it, and in the end, you will welcome it.

Respectable AND classy!

Ahhhhh, wasn't the 70's was a massive time for Dracula? Hammer was on it's final journey, Franco was giving it a shot, Frank Langella (dreamy, dreamy Langella) was simultaneously playing the role on stage as well as on film, Herzog and Kinski were teaming up again for 'Nosferatu'... quite a boom. So it goes without saying that the ever trusty and classy BBC decided to launch a Masterpiece Theatre production of Bram Stoker's novel, daring to follow as closely to the book as it possibly can, and despite several discrepancies and some obvious dating, this one is pretty damn solid enough to certainly recommend to anybody who wants to see the tale done better.


While heavily staged in terms of acting and filming, the result is quite well done. Director Phillip Saville took great pains to follow Stoker's prose and tries to keep it all on the level. There is no overt eroticism in the style of Coppola, or maximum theatricality of Lugosi, instead, it is played as realistically as possible while retaining the spirit of not just the story, but of the essence of Dracula himself, this time interpreted by the slinky Louis Jourdan. The entire production saturates you with the prim and proper atmosphere of the Victorian era without going overboard. It's quietly gorgeous.

                                                         This is my Happy Face.


Backed up by the lavish yet at the same time restrained settings is an admirable cast of trained British actors- Judi Bowker as Mina Murray/Harker (Princess Andromeda from the original 'Clash of the Titans'), Frank Finlay as Professor Van Helsing (whose characterization is thematically the closest they get) while Mark Burns as Doctor Seward plays off Finlay admirably. However, honors must be bestowed upon Jack Shephard who plays Renfield- much like Klaus Kinski in Franco's 'Count Dracula' he gives the character a firm grounding in reality- Shephard's Renfield comes off as a sane man fighting for his peace of mind in an insane situation. Granted, there are moments of undisputed craziness, but you truly do feel for this man, and it's even worse because you know what his fate will be. And although every actor is dealt with some clunkers in terms of dialogue, Shephard really is a champion when it comes to delivering exposition about Dracula's hold over him and how he wants to escape but can't.


Other actors however don't fare quite so well- Bosco (Who calls their kid 'Bosco' by the way?) Hogan (Harker) almost immediately comes across as totally unsympathetic, put quite simply, he really is a boob. He seems to only catch on that he and his wife Mina are in serious trouble towards the end of the picture, and by then, the endgame is almost over. Susan Penhaligon isn't awful, but she really had no business playing a character like Lucy- she is far too restrained and she never lets herself go when she becomes Dracula's marionette. It's a shame because Lucy really is an important character because she is not only used as an example of Dracula's power over us mere mortals, but also as a statement of the social anxieties of the time- that being women were frightening when they were permitted access to their sexuality. Thing is, we women are still scary when we aren't driven by our hormones so the joke's on you, Papa Patricarchy! >:-D


Naturally this brings me to Jourdan's portrayal of the Count. When you think of Jourdan, you don't automatically associate him with Dracula, but here, although he may not look the part by pop culture standards, he really does have the spirit of Dracula. He is darkly magnetic, and even though he never raises his voice or a hand to anybody, there is something in his dark, dark eyes that makes you believe that this fellow isn't human. Looks wise,  he may not be a traditionally handsome man by any stretch of the imagination, (I wouldn't say that) but God is he ever sexy. People (of the stupid variety, naturally) think Jourdan is sleep-walking through this role, and that is completely untrue. Sure, Lee was a total animal, and yes, Lugosi is the Classic Count, but Jourdan nails the enigma of Dracula, and let me ask you, when does an enigma call exclusive attention to himself by flourishing his cape or pulling a RapeFace or baring their fangs at every ample opportunity? Jourdan is a silent but precise predator who only strikes when he finds it prudent. 

Right, so what stops me from saying this is the definitive Dracula? For one thing, it is not absolutely faithful- once again, characters are messed with and their relationships are re-arranged. Mina and Lucy are sisters this time, and Lucy no longer has three suitors, instead they are rolled into one, Quincy Morris (who unfortunately is played by a mediocre at best actor) although the character of Doctor Seward still remains and still has feelings for Lucy. Additionally, from an aesthetic point of view, there are some rather... colourful aspects. I know Saville was trying to keep things interesting, but he really did go a little overboard with colour filters and film negatives, even if they were meant to represent Dracula's presence in a scene. To be perfectly blunt, this really does show the date of the film, which in this case, isn't beneficial.

                                                                                Blegh.
Another aspect that works against the overall product is some inappropriate use of music and sound effects. When something mysterious is afoot, you hear this chime like what you hear on a child's storybook tape that signals when you are supposed to turn the cassette over. That comes dangerously close to taking you out of the movie completely, something Saville unfortunately didn't quite catch on to. I can applaud the fact he was willing to be unique in his approach to an oft-filmed story , but there is only so much old school charm we new audiences can take before we ridicule a film. Unless of course you are a nostalgic sort, you may find it endearing, but personally, I felt it was completely unnecessary. 


In saying that however, if you consider yourself above settling for such ultimately petty quarrels, by all means, check this one out. It may not be the complete package, but it stays utterly faithful to the spirit of the story. Owe it to yourself to see a Dracula done the way it was originally intended without all the flags and flights of fancy, something tells me even if you don't like it, it is more than worthy of your respect.

                                                      

Could it be... Lee? V.0 2

First off, I want to say this- I really have no idea how to explain my feelings about this movie. Horrorotica director extraordinaire Jesus Franco's take on Dracula starts off as a very respectable take on Stoker's prose only to descend into what can only be described as whacky madness. I... I guess it was entertaining, but this film is not without a massive dose of WTF-ery as the run time clocked forward.

Jesus Franco is a director who I enjoy generally, and he has made some of my favourite films, all of them with a heady note of sexuality. There are some people out there who would argue that his films are glorified soft porn, and to an extent that could be true, but softcore porn doesn't come (Freudian slip, sorry) with fascinating characters, gorgeous camera work, eclectic soundtrack (I love the almost insectile nature of the music his chooses), and intense visuals all the while being part of a story. Franco's films are usually embued with a distinct sense of European erotica with a major sensation of the disturbed underneath. His view of sex isn't idealised, but it should be no means be taken as the real. His 'Eugenie De Sade' and 'Eugenie... the Story of Her Journey Into Perversion' are the best examples of Franco mixing sex with classic literature all the while retaining a distinct sense of class and sensibility. Or at least, that's how I view his work. That being said, when I watched 'Count Dracula' I was a little taken aback about how mainly chaste the film was. Now, given this is Franco trying to be genuine, I wasn't expecting his token psychedelic version of sexuality, but I almost felt as if Franco wasn't the right person to direct this picture, at least for the first hour or so. Franco plays it almost down the middle, trying to tell the story as it happened- young green-thumb solicitor Jonathan Harker sets out to meet with Dracula (Christopher Lee- AGAIN! The man could play Dracula for a free sandwich as long as it was a tasty one), just as it was written in the novel, complete with featured dialogue. However, as soon as Dracula hits London, that is where Franco starts to lose his load. It's not that he drops the magic completely, but the transition from traditional story-telling to dreamy and whacked out hits you like a freight train. I guess you could attribute this change of pace to Dracula's supernatural ways and his means of influence, but it still feels incredibly out of place. On top of that, despite this craziness, Franco's token sexuality is mysteriously absent. I'm not criticizing the movie because it doesn't have sex (I'm not a male aged from 12 to... 150) but if Franco wanted to make his take on the story, it would have been far suitable if he did it in the style he was comfortable with rather than resorting to pretense.

That being said, that's not to say it is without it's merits. Aside from Franco's token visual splendors and trippy soundtrack, you have Christopher Lee playing a far more closer to the book version of Dracula than Count RapeFace. When you first see him, he is an old man, with a long iron-coloured beard and a deeply forboding presence. He doesn't leap around, snarling and behaving like an animal like Lee's alternate Dracula did. Here, he retains a lot of the novel Dracula's characterization and he comes off like a champion. Lee himself said he was proud to have taken part in the movie because he felt that Franco didn't cheapen the character the way Hammer in the later years had and that pride comes through.

                                                                              Hi.

Another actor that shines is the gale force that is Klaus Kinski as Renfield. Rather than go all out in his insanity, Kinski's Renfield comes off as a little quieter and despite those Manson Lamp Eyes of his, his rendition of everybody's favourite lunatic comes off as a little more honest to the original character. A quick aside here, nine years later, Kinski would be playing a very different version of Dracula in Werner Herzog's remake/retooling of 'Nosferatu'. 

                                                       Kinski before morning coffee.

I would also be foolish if I did not mention the illuminating Soledad Miranda as Lucy. Soledad Miranda was not a conventional classic beauty by anybody's standards, but she had a mystifying aura about her that far surpassed her looks. She was an exotic and intriguing woman with a suitably Gothic look, much like Barbara Steele, who could say so much with her eyes in every role she did prior to her sudden and tragic death. Here she embues Lucy with a sense of fragility as well as ethereal wonder. Her sequences with Lee are nothing short of hypnotizing and I think her Lucy was far more compelling than Maria Rohm's Mina in terms of performance.

                                                                        Luminous.

Okay, so what happened that made me ultimately less enjoy this movie? Aside from my previous statements with regards to Franco's preferred method of film making and some throwaway character casting, there are some scenes that really have no right to be there. Case in point- in one scene that is meant to be frightening, the stuffed heads of animal game comes alive in a room then menaces Dracula's pursuers complete with some ADD camera work. Now, what movie does that remind you of?

Yep, that's the one.

Look, I have nothing against trying to go outside the norm, but in saying that, the moment Franco whipped that out of his bent top hat I was shaking my head, grinning. Not with the sheer absurdity of the sequence but at it. What was Franco smoking when he came up with that? Most ironic thing is though is that 'Count Dracula' was made a good decade or so before 'Evil Dead II'. Oh, Franco, what were you thinking-o.
Also, the pacing. This film does have a brief run time all things considered, but sometimes, and this isn't the only movie guilty of this, Franco doesn't quite know when to quit-o. He has a tendency to spend a lot of time focusing on one frame even when there really isn't a lot happening and when the action does happen, it gets drawn out to an almost tenuous length at times that you just want Monty Python to pop up and say "Get on with it.".

Done and dusted, Franco's Count Dracula genuinely tries to be respectable to the source, and that I can very much appreciate, but it's greatest foil is the fact the film maker isn't being true to his values. If he had wanted to make his very own spin of Dracula complete with psychosexuality, I would have been all for it, because Franco's mastery lay within that arena. I wouldn't have minded seeing a gorgeous European stud style Dracula charm his way under many a babealicious underskirt as long as Franco had did it his way. Then again, if I wanted to see that, I could just imagine Hugh Jackman crawling up under my sheets, his hands removing my bodice as I reach for his... oops, sorry. Overshare?

                     Yeah, sorry, Hugh Jackman isn't European enough. How about Raoul Bova?


Trivia:  During filming, Lee and the actor who played Van Helsing, Herbert Lom, did not meet even though their characters shared several scenes. I am a little confounded why, because this confused both actors as well- for some reason Franco made a conscious decision to have both men film their scenes on different days and never the twain did meet. 

Dario Argento's Dracula Leaked Trailer

Just thought I would share this with you all. Granted, this leaked trailer has unfinished visual effects and a temporary music score, but I am getting a serious whiff of gouda lightly garnished with shit.

Volodymir Ivanovich Palahniuk? As Dracula?

Surely you can't mean Jack Palance?

Let me just say right now, that this supposedly faithful adaptation to Stoker's tale is a few rungs above absolute CRAP. Yes. CRAP. I'm not saying this because it was made for television, not on such nebulous grounds, because aesthetically it is more mounted for a feature than something DTV, but everything about it is appalling from the acting to the poor direction of it all. For a production that looks more lavish than it had any right to be, none of that money was used on correct casting or proper direction. Everything is just so incompetent I have no idea where on Earth to begin.

For one thing, given the story/script was penned by Richard Matheson (yes, the self-same Richard Matheson who wrote for 'The Twilight Zone', 'I Am Legend' AND 'Hell House') it is tremendously watered down and confused about what direction it wants to take. Of course everything may have looked fantastic on paper given Matheson's considerable skill as an author, but methinks a lot got lost in translation when it came to filming his writing for the screen. Reminds me a little of how Stephen King's works have fared- you get some doozies, you get some not-too-shabbies and you get some pretty-damn-impressives, however, it all comes back to how effectively the work is adapted for a visual medium and how the material is handled. Here, it comes off as almost a shock that Matheson was responsible for the rabble we watch on screen.

Given there are worse versions out there, but for something so well-known and over-lauded, the casting is a crime.
Who in their right mind would cast Jack Palance as Dracula? It's not because of Palance's looks that misfires the role, but Palance's persona and the fact he is being forced to resort to absolute hammage, even worse, he isn't even having fun as he overacts in every scene. There is not one ounce of threat in his performance- not for one second did I buy him as a potential danger to any other character, the only element of danger he brought to the part was the fact he whipped his cape around so much you'd swear he'd give himself whiplash. The way he ridiculously postures in every sequence he's in is painful to witness, and you'd swear he was reading his lines from a cue card just off-screen. I personally don't hate Palance, but I hate him in such an iconic and pivotal role. Say what you will, but whoever is cast as Dracula shapes the rest of the picture, not to mention how the rest of the cast plays off them, and in this case, Palance is perhaps the most serious liability that has absolutely no redeeming moments.

                                               Please, do us all a favor and just get in there.

That being said, it's not entirely his fault.

Director Dan Curtis has stripped away the supernatural elements that are crucial to a Dracula picture. His biggest mistake was directing Palance to be a soley physical force, that is, Dracula doesn't use his other abilities such as hypnosis, shape-shifting and powers of suggestion. He just sweeps into each scene throwing people aside like a mere mortal man would. For somebody who previously directed genre works such as 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde', 'Frankenstein', 'The Night Stalker' and 'Burnt Offerings' all of the mysticism of Dracula has been firmly watered down. I wonder what possessed him to take such a route.

The rest of the cast doesn't come off any better either. Nigel Davenport, who, I suppose plays Van Helsing is so weak-willed that it defies the essense of what the character is all about. Van Helsing is meant to be Dracula's equal, he does not shy from the challenge of hunting Dracula down and killing him, but here, Davenport is hopeless. In a scene when Van Helsing confronts Dracula with a cross, Palance rumbles through his obviously fake dentures "Throw it away!" and a very chastised Van Helsing mutters "All right.". WTH?! I don't think so. For something that was meant to be a clash of the titans, it came across as more of a confrontation between two schoolboys over a soccer ball.

I'm not even gonna talk about the rest of the supporting cast because they really are not worth mentioning at all. You'd think I am exaggerating, but I'm being truthful by saying the less said about these folks the better because they are simply there.

The Dracula fan in me wanted to like this production. Really, she did. She was willing to get over the strange casting of the grizzled warhorse Palance, but in the end, this was a seriously missed and wasted opportunity to offer up a strong television adaptation of such a classic work where money was vested more in making things look authentic rather than finding the best talent to showcase in it.

Trivia: Talk about ironic- Jack Palance admitted to being glad once the film was completed. A method actor, he felt that he was "becoming" Dracula more than he wanted. HAHAH! Well...

End Of An Era

You will either find 'The Satanic Rites of Dracula' extremely awesome or extremely idiotic simply because of how... inventive it is. Rather of Dracula simply being content to hunt down quivering virgins (yeah, tough luck of that happening in the 70's), the Count's ambitions actually soar a lot higher than you'd expect. Dracula wants to destroy the world. Count Dracula has had it with the world he lives in as well as his quasi-immortality. Rather than skip into the sunlight, he wants to not just take himself out, but everybody else, seeing it ultimately as a mercy... or that's what I gathered from such a bombastic scheme. And rather than using vampirism to do it, he uses something a lot closer to home- the pestilence. Holy shit. Dracula isn't just pissed in this one- he's completely certifiable.

                                                                  Say whaaaaaaaa?

This being the final installment of the Lee Dracula canon, it's only predictable that all involved in the production wanted to go out with a bang, and depending on how you took my above description, you will either come freely or go safely (get it?). Given the sour taste Dracula AD left in my mouth, I was only too happy to forget that film's crap by going into this one with some shred of optimism. Despite being a direct sequel to AD, it mercifully has little to do with the previous film, despite being set in the same time period and using the same central characters (Dracula, Lorrimer Van Helsing and his granddaughter Jessica). What we have here is a bizzare combination of science fiction, horror and suspense thriller, to say it's boring would be untrue. Hammer is actually going for something new here, and despite how too little, too late this final entry was, I must say it was a lot of fun to watch. I can appreciate how you may feel this movie will be an utter waste of your time just going by the premise alone, but in order to see what I see, you will have to watch it for yourself, then decide.

                                                 Take your time, Dracula's getting lucky.

While it all starts simply enough, it's not long before we are sucked into Dracula's version of the Final Solution. Undertaking another identity, he works behind the scenes like a malicious Wizard of Oz, leading the Van Helsings and a policeman caught up in the thick of it, into a frantic race against time to not only put an end to a wave of Satanic cult killings, but also to prevent Dracula from embarking on his global murder/suicide. It almost plays out like a supernatural Tom Clancy/John La Carre novel, using spy-work, infiltration, detective work and a huge dose of paranoia to show that the world is bound for imminent apocalypse. To be perfectly frank, it's not as action-packed as it sounds, it's actually more about exposition and theories, but before you shrink away, Peter Cushing is the undisputed star of this movie. He carries all of it and it is his presence and his performance that keeps you interested. Yes, it sounds ridiculous and a little tedious judging from all the talking that takes place, but by God, it was quite a return to form for Lee's Dracula series that I thought it was almost brilliant. It's not a perfect film and it truly does jump the shark, but this wild new spin makes you sit up and take notice. I must say, it really was an end of an era because this was the last time Lee and Cushing appeared in their signature roles, and their curtain calls are certainly worthy. Dracula wins back the menace he had in the earlier films, and Van Helsing is truly consumed by his destiny to destroy Dracula once and for all. It's almost like Michael Meyers and Doctor Loomis from 'Halloween', only... more awesome. There, I said it.

                                                                    To the bitter end...


In saying that, what you truly can't ignore is that it was as if this film was written first, plot wise, with Dracula being added as an after thought. It's to be expected at this point, so whatever gripe you may have with this movie can't be measured on that alone. However, rather than giving us another stupid regeneration sequence, he just shows up and we don't see him again until the last 20 minutes of the picture. Not necessarily a bad thing considering Hammer finally stepped out of the kiddy pool by something different, but given this was the final Dracula film Lee would appear in, and given his plan is pretty much the foundation of the movie, one would think that he would have been given more screentime. In saying that however, Lee didn't show up a whole lot in Horror of Dracula, a good move considering Dracula was meant to be an elusive creature. In SROD, he doesn't really make an appearance as Dracula himself, but rather, he assumes a false identity (though it's still evidently Lee) in order to set Lorrimer and Jessica Van Helsing off his trail. It's a bit of a confusing move, but in contrast to the tomfoolery that occurred in AD, it's an understandable move, if not a forgiven one.
I also must say that Joanna Lumely makes for a far better Jessica Van Helsing than her younger predecessor Stephanie Beachum- the character has her grandfather's determination and intelligence, plus the attributes of a liberated woman of the era. A welcome change from the female victims that littered the films previously.

Ultimately, this is a much inferior film considering the brilliance of the earlier installments, but as a matter of perspective, it made an admirable effort to clean up the dog spew that AD hurled up on our shoes. It's likely that you will laugh this movie into the ground, but if you are in a charitable mood, this may be a very, very fun and inventive film, despite how simply outrageous it all is. Is it a worthy ending? No. Is it better than what it should have been? Definitely.

"Oh, the PAIN, the PAIN!"

The quote so famously bellowed by Doctor Smith from Lost In Space in the title should give enough indication that sitting through this movie without a braced mind is enough to give any self-respecting film lover a migraine. What could have been a novel concept was quickly transformed into a lame horse waiting to be put out of it's misery when one watches this movie, I mean, where do I begin?

                                                           I'm tempted, Drac, I really am.

First, every single cliche that has been used in all of the Hammer Horror films is used in this movie, the only difference being that it's set in the groovy 70's. I have no problem separating the stupid from the charming, but seriously, this film is ridiculous. Even if you viewed it as a joke, it falls flat on it's face like a drunken starlet stumbling out of a limousine without any knickers on- you watch and snicker, but it's at the starlet, not along with them. Dare I say, even Lee starts to come off as a major mook in this picture (it pains me to say that by the way) . The storyline is predictable, but here is one of the most ridiculous aspects of the film makes it'self apparent- it's not meant to be a canon sequel to the previous Dracula films. Okay, we could have worked with this wonderfully if this film wasn't so saturated in pungent cheese. Now, cheese is fun as we all know, but this film makes an explicit point to remind you that this is the 70's every step of the way. Kaleidoscopic fashions, token funky music (which at times sounds like a porno of all things) and every single cast member sprinkling their lines with verbal discourse exclusive to the time period. Think PJ Soles from Halloween constantly spurting 'Totally' and you have a general idea of these young hipster's vocabulary.

                             You know you're in trouble if THIS kinda thing doesn't save the movie.

But that aside, what really confuses you is that even though this film says it's meant to be it's own entity, it still has a (ri-DONK-ulous) Dracula resurrection sequence which blatantly references Dracula's destruction in the previous film. If they really wanted to start anew, why would they feel the need to show this? Couldn't they have just said that Dracula was, I dunno, in a deep sleep or something? It boggles the mind, and not in a David Lynch way.
To me, the only true saving grace of this movie is the return of Peter Cushing (who actually plays two ancestors of Van Helsing, Lawrence and Lorrimer) to the franchise. I just want to bring this up because I need to get this off my chest- does anybody else feel like their intelligence is being insulted whenever they cast the same actor to play various relatives? I mean, it's obvious people wanted to see Cushing as a Van Helsing again, who wouldn't, but come on, surely they could have chosen another actor to assume that character? I doubt their identity would be lost on viewers.

But even the comforting presence of Van Helsing isn't enough to keep you from tearing your hair out because of the young, hipster cast. Stephanie Beachum, who plays Jessica Van Helsing (I guess Peter Cushing couldn't make a convincing woman) is almost a non-issue even though she is meant to be the heir of the Van Helsing legacy. It's like she's there solely to be the means Dracula uses to have his vengence on the Van Helsing family. The character would return in the last Dracula film played by Boomkat Favourite Joanna Lumley, but she is a completely different person.
Then there's the character of Johnny Alucard. Ah, Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, JOHNNY. If there was ever a more obnoxious character, they would have to work pretty hard to overbear Johnny. He's meant to be this charismatic figure who can get all the babes and make everybody do as he says, but man... what a sad, sorry little dick. This guy is meant to be Dracula's regent (I prefer the term 'butt boy' myself) and yet he's got the attitude of a mentally inept 17 year old. Plus his wardrobe SUCKS.

                                                                            Groovy.


While films of this nature have the capacity to be charming, there really is little joy and good humour to be had watching this movie, even if you are taking it lightly. In the end, you really do feel sorry for Lee the actor rather than Dracula. I don't know how Lee made it through filming because his rendition of the Count this time take a third wheel role behind Johnny Alucard. I have nothing against having the big guy as a background ominpotent figure, but given how charmless and idiotic Johnny Alucard is, to think Dracula put this guy in charge makes you question Dracula's credibility as the Big Bad.

Speaking of Lee, what a waste. All he does is stand around and look menacing and speaks in his deep barritone some truly reeking dialogue that almost rivals the shit he had to say in Lucas's Star Wars prequels. Gone is the animalistic and sexual Count Dracula, in his place is something a little more animated than a cardboard cut-out. I realise Lee was getting older by this point, but Dracula's sexually perverse nature it's merely limited to how he looks- it's all in what he does, and he does absolutely nothing here that makes you want to lock up your mothers, daughters and wives. Not Lee's fault in particular and with what little he does have he manages to use, but unfortunately, he just doesn't sell it. You'd think Hammer would at least owe it to Lee to ham it up given this franchise all but depended on Dracula's inclusion even if his presence by this point had become redundant.

Just in case you were wondering, even if you watch this film for the T & A, the initial attraction wears off faster than you think. Yes, cult cinema cheesecake Caroline Munroe shows her generous body and she looks magnificent as usual, but really, if Hammer's continued embrace of the naked body and Lee and Cushing going head to head doesn't save the movie, nothing does.

This movie really is a lame failure on all accounts, and it is a pity once you get down to the bare essentials- you had two stalwarts being reunited with a fresh restart to a fading franchise only for the studio to chicken out and give the audience what they want... again... and again... and again. If it's of any consultation to you though, the final film manages to claw back the most scantest of ground Dracula had left to stand on... not that it truly makes a difference in the end.

Trivia: You have probably noticed that my review is quite lack-lusture, this was intentional on my part, because really, I don't care much for this movie. Thing is, I like a few worse films than this, but I am able to find more humor in them. It's a cruel, strange world.


And before you male readers say I don't cater to your tastes:

                                                     The aforementioned Caroline Munroe.
                                                             Please stop your bitching.

                   

STABBITY STABBITY!

Nice OSHIT face, Bro, and sorry for the brief dead air, folks.


The fifth but far from final excursion into Dracula's world by Hammer- 'Scars of Dracula' is the type of film which really tests a Dracula fan's loyalty- will you go along with it, or will you despise it with every fibre of your being due to it's outlandish take on the character. To my begrudging amazement, personally, I thought it was fine... for what it was.

I'm not gonna bother going over the story's finer details other than the tried and true "Dracula returns to life (this time thanks to a very fake rubber bat drooling blood onto his ashes) silly schmuck finds his way into Dracula's lair, gets into trouble and his friends come to find him only to get into trouble themselves" schtick, however, I must confess that this film works more as a slasher than a Dracula movie- you see, Dracula doesn't so much rely upon his supernatural abilities to cause havoc- he uses sharp implements. Yep, Dracula has become a SLASHER, a very well dressed one. With his blazing red eyes and the baring of his incisors, there is nothing sane about this guy. In a very left of center sequence, Dracula repeatedly stabs one of his wives to death with a nasty-looking dagger as her lover/victim watches in horror and then subsequently drinks blood from her dead body like a rabid wolf. What the Hell?! In another scene, Dracula's vicious nature takes a decidedly perverted turn- he punishes his man servant, Klove (the selfsame character from DPOD), an activity that he thoroughly enjoys, but here's the kicker- Klove seems to be enjoying this treatment and Dracula is only too happy to oblige. The widely-used term 'torture porn' can be truthfully applied here.

                                                       How's THIS for a lightsaber?

Many of his sequences involve the merciless torture of his victims, all of them in cruel and vindictive ways. But, in a way, this new side to Dracula to an extent- DOES work. Director Ray Ward Baker must be given credit for trying to take Dracula and his shennenigans in another direction- there is a distinct scent of mouldy Gothic cheese coating every sequence (though Lee himself remains cheese-proof), yet you can still appreciate the fact that Baker IS trying and not all of his efforts are wasted. Some of the more inspiring sequences include direct references to the Bram Stoker novel- for the first time, we see Lee's Dracula scaling the wall like a lizard, some of his lines (or trash talk to be specific- "You fools! Do you think you could match your wits with mine?") are lifted right from the pages, and, perhaps the sweetest, a nod to the notion that Dracula was once known as Vlad the Impaler. While this film isn't an abbitor by today's desensitized standards, you still get plentiful claret being spilled and bodies being mutilated to keep you satisfied. Despite the ever-increasing contempt Lee had for the character, he still manages to instill his unforgettable savagery into the role that you can't imagine anybody else doing it. Even when he dies once again due to some retarded means, you know he will come back ready to rock again and that you can count on for a good time.
As long as you're willing to go with this, this shouldn't be too bad a ride.

                                           Malcom McDowell- not Dracula's favourite person

However, if you are a purist Dracula fan, I suggest for your health that you avoid this movie like the Plague- most of this film, and Lee's portrayal could be construed as an insult- long gone is his articulate nature and regal bearing, replacing it is the form of a man-beast, thirsty and single minded by his thirst. If this wasn't Dracula, this version of the vampire would have worked wonderfully, but once again- money and public demand usually mean sell out. And here, the character of Dracula, the ESSENCE of him, has been drained completely dry. Were it not for the fact that Lee jumps into the perversity of the role, there really is no apparent reason to sit through this. Not to say the supporting players don't do fine with the way thinner material they were given (and if you want lovely natural female nudity with your Bloody Mary, it's right here), but honestly, by this point, the series' only drawing point was Lee's presence- without Lee, audiences would have given this one the shaft without even having seen it. Sad, but ultimately true, which just goes to show that selling out a once promising series wasn't first pioneered with the 'Saw' films isn't a contemporary practice.

                                                                       Charming.

In saying all of that, this isn't what I consider the weakest link of the series, but when you compare it against the earlier outings... this one is merely serviceable. It has some memorable moments that should be given respect, but since it has actively placed itself in the series' canon, you can't get away from the fact this could have been so much better if you actually gave a damn about it, but if it wasn't made, you really wouldn't have given a damn.

Trivia: Is it just me or does Dracula have far too many weaknesses/ways to be destroyed? Sunlight, running water, wolfsbane, staking, garlic, fire, crosses/religious icons, electricity (yes, electricity)... come on Dracula, don't tell us you also have asthma. 

Just how fucking bored do you have to be?!

While Taste The Blood of Dracula is not (at least to me) as solid as the first three canonical Dracula films from Hammer, it doesn't have the distinct whiff of crap-burger the follow-ups have. Indeed, after watching it again specifically for this review, I can say that it would have actually worked better without the inclusion of Dracula. Seriously, this entire tale would have worked just as well if another vampiric character was the main villain. One of the main problems the later Dracula franchise had was finding convoluted ways to bring Dracula back as well as give him motivation to go on his killing sprees. In the case of TTBOD, this time around, he isn't killing for himself- he's doing it for his faithful servant!
That's right, Dracula actually gives a damn about a scarce number of humans in the world, by way of instance here, Lord Courtley (Ralph Bates). But I'm overshooting, let's back up a little.

Three elderly men, terminally bored with their bougeouise lives and bored with their families make nightly excursions to bawdy houses and other places of ill repute to get a cheap thrill, despite knowing how temporary it all is. Finally, they meet Lord Courtley, a young man who may just have the ultimate thrill... and a Satanist. As the three men find out, this ultimate thrill is to resurrect Dracula using several artifacts and powdered blood (admittedly, it's not too badly thought out, though come on... POWDERED blood? Dracula isn't a protein shake!)

                                                                   More tea, Vicar?

Despite their initial foolish impulses to follow through on this dark ritual, and despite Courtley's goading, the three men back out and kill Courtley in not just fright but also a sudden onset of conscience. However, the damage has already been done and Drac is back with a new plan of attack. Angry that his loyal servant has been killed, Dracula takes it upon himself to kill not only the elderly thrill seekers, but their entire families- kinda reminds you of a certain Keyser Soze, doesn't it?

Alright, now is this a bad film? No. If you get over the fact that it's Dracula, it's actually a lot of fun with the usual lush production values Hammer utilized with ample bloodshed and titillation to spare. It still retains a distinct set of class to add to the ridiculous fun. I believe however that Dracula really has no reason to be here. The character of Lord Courtley was originally meant to be the lead villain, and I would have loved to have seen that. Ralph Bates has the charisma, menace and handsome looks to carry off a vampiric character and I found him quite magnetic every time he was on screen. In fact, the story did have Courtley as the vampire with no mention of Dracula. Hammer's distribution studio refused to accept a film without Lee because they wanted to cash in on Dracula further and it was this that made Lee contemptuous of the character with movies to come- he did it, but he didn't dig it. At least here though, he is still a joy to watch as he punishes fool humans left and right and taking some thrall women on the side.

                                           Come on, don't tell me this kinda picture wasn't inevitable.


But what also lifts this production from potential dirge is also the underlying message that humans have a tendency to mess with what they don't understand and get burned for it. The three old thrill seekers see the error of their ways when Dracula sets to work on their families and they realize how foolish they have been in their own selfish pursuits. There is no Van Helsing to chastise them on the idiocy of their ways- it's a hard lesson they find out for themselves, too little, too late. One could almost say this is a Sins of the Father fable which sees their children having to contend with Dracula due to the fact their fathers screwed up. I'm not going to mention the whole fact that Dracula is doing this out of revenge for a human servant, no matter how faithful they were- this development was obviously a money-grabbing excuse to bring Dracula back, nothing more. It's not Lee's fault by any means, he was on contract after all and he did what he could, but this is a silly movie with enough redeeming features to make it entertaining, but it's not enough to lift it's credibility. If I have anything to say, see it if you are curious or if you are a completist of the series, don't see it if you are looking for a solid film with Dracula as it's center, something which this is not.

                                                             A metaphor for my ranking.