Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Leofwine_draca DRACULA A.D. 1972 is the sixth and penultimate instalment of Hammer's long-running DRACULA saga. The writers had the clever idea to update the setting to the then-modern day to bring it in line with contemporary American vampire flicks including THE NIGHT STALKER, BLACULA, and COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE. As such, it's a film which goes all-out in depictions of early 1970s culture, with lots of hip, happening dialogue, extended party and music scenes, and couples making out. Although there's the requisite bloodshed and gruesomeness, the most outrageous thing you'll see here are the fashions. Things begin with an excellent pre-credits action scene in which Lee's Count is staked in a novel way, before that clever-clever segue to the plane overhead which is second only to the famous 'bone' scene in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. From this point on, Christopher Neame's sinister Johnny Alucard helps the Count get resurrected in a de-consecrated church and then feeds him a string of victims before Van Helsing's descendant steps in. The only real problem I have with this film is the way the plot seems over-simplified and dragged out. Other than the modern setting, it's the same old story told again. Christopher Lee has very little screen time and little to work with, although Peter Cushing is a master at depicting steely resolve and comes across well. Stephanie Beacham makes for an arresting damsel in distress, just as she did in ...AND NOW THE SCREAMING STARTS, and the likes of Caroline Munro, Michael Coles, and Michael Kitchen are all utilised well in their smaller parts. Due to the slow-moving scenes earlier on, the climax gets a little rushed, but overall this remains watchable, although not great. Hammer would end the series on a high with the superior, thriller-y SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA made the following year.

Rainey Dawn I actually like this movie. It's a refreshing change in the Lee Dracula Hammer series. It is very interesting to see Lee's Dracula set in a modern time era (1972) -- but that didn't seem to phase Dracula at all.I enjoyed Johnny Alucard and his friends resurrecting Dracula and what happens to them afterwards. This part of the story really is captivating - just as much as Dracula.So pleased that Peter Cushing is back as Prof. Abraham van Helsing, the descendant of Dr. Lawrence van Helsing. Prof. Helsing is on the trail of the resurrected Dracula as his ancestor before him. (See: Dracula aka Horror of Dracula 1958).It's always a great film when Cushing and Lee are together - their presence alone will make any drab film worthwhile. Once again, the duo does not disappoint in Dracula A.D. 1972.8.5/10

Bonehead-XL Hammer had upped the sex and gore in their movies but were still loosing ground to more modern horror. Perhaps missing the point, Hammer decided to update their biggest franchise. Dracula was, as the awesome trailer says, coming to the 1970s to "freak you out." The film also reunites Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, Dracula and Van Helsing facing off once more. The tactic didn't work and the film wasn't successful. "Dracula 1972 AD" would be the beginning of the end for Hammer's Dracula series."Dracula 1972 AD" opens with a flashback. Dracula and Van Helsing fight atop a carriage in 1872… Wait. "Horror of Dracula" was set in 1885! You're telling me the first movie took place thirteen years after Dracula and Van Helsing's final fight? If the filmmakers were even paying attention, we can presume this was a continuity reboot. Unless you want me to fanwank an explanation involving identical twins and unseen resurrections… Anyway, 100 years later, a hip Satanist named Johnny Alucard invites his groovy friends to a black mass at an abandoned church. After some Satanic bugaboo, Dracula is resurrected in the swinging seventies. Among Johnny's friend is Jessica Van Helsing, the current Van Helsing's granddaughter. Dracula seeks the girl for revenge.After the action packed opening, "Dracula 1972 AD" does a dramatic jump cut. We pan up from the carriage to a jet flying through the sky. As we go on a tour of the hip spots of London, circa 1972, a funk-jazz number plays on the soundtrack. Soon, the film transitions to a party where some awful hippy band plays. The uptight social types are aghast at the presentations while the cool kids joke around with them. If the title, music, and fashion didn't clue you in, the obvious way the characters act places this in the seventies. The hippy teenagers are constantly at odds with the adults. Isolated scenes seem less like Hammer horror and more like a teen-targeted social drama.What does this have to do with Dracula? Not a lot. The title promises Dracula cutting up among the modern world. That doesn't happen. Instead, Lee remains confined to the abandoned church for the entire film. Perhaps Dracula realizes he, still rocking the black cape look, wouldn't fit in. The character's role is quite small. So the film creates a deliberate segregation between Gothic horror and the modern setting. Johnny Alucard brings victims back to the church, where Dracula feeds on them. The king of the vampires hangs out there while his young disciple goes hunting. On the good side, this dynamic is represented by the police collaborating with occult expert Van Helsing. The weirdest part is that director Alan Gibson nails the classic Hammer look. The grey crypt and billowing fog look awesome. But "Dracula 1972 AD" does not do a good job of mingling Gothic horror with a modern setting. Compare this to the same year's "Blacula," which did the same thing more successfully.With Lee used sparingly, the focus shifts to the kids. How much you enjoy "1972" will depend on how much you enjoy the characters. Johnny Alucard's character arc is identical to Count Courtley from "Taste the Blood of Dracula" except instead of dying, he turns into a vampire. There is a sleazy charm to Alucard stalking women in Soho. The teens are thinly defined. One is a prankster, one is noble, one is black, and then there's the Other Girl. "Dracula 1972 AD" is fortunate to feature two of the most desirable women to ever appear in a Hammer film. Stephanine Beacham plays Jessica. I wish Beacham had more to do, besides be a screaming victim, as she proves likable. She's also always on the verge of exploding out of her tight tops. Meanwhile, achingly beautiful Caroline Munro plays Laura, who is, disappointingly, Dracula's first victim.For the problems "AD" has, the film does have stand-out moments. The Black Mass sequence is the closest the film comes to being scary. The music builds, smoke rises, Alucard shouts demonic names, and the scene climaxes with Caroline Munro getting blood poured over her cleavage. Cushing's role, though much larger then Lee's, still has limited screen time. Too much of that is devoted to Cushing giving exposition on vampires, which the audience already knows. Cushing, for his benefit, plays this Van Helsing differently then the classic Van Helsing. He's older, more vulnerable to physical violence, and more bookish. When he leaps into action, confronting Alucard in his apartment, he gets wounded at first. However, Van Helsing uses his brain to overcome, reflecting sunlight off a mirror until Alucard falls into a working shower. That's a fun moment. The duel between Lee and Cushing has a tense confrontation in a stairway, makes good use of a silver dagger, and gives Dracula a spectacular death. Dracula tosses Van Helsing outside and goes in for the kill. Suddenly, the hunter tosses holy water into the vampire's face before dropping him in an improvised punji spike pit. Drac squirms as Van Helsing hits him with a shovel, bloodily pushing him through a stake. As far as Dracula's death scenes go, it's up there with the sun-bathed finale in "Horror of Dracula." And, hey, the entire climax features Stephanie Beachum in a low-cut white dress. Which is nice.Director Alan Gibson has some interesting directorial quirks. He makes good use of close-ups on faces. Something he does repeatedly is place the action in the distance while filling the rest of the frame with negative space. "Dracula 1972 AD" wasn't a hit but has developed a following over the years. It has a funky energy unique among the series even if it doesn't make the best use of Lee and could have done a better job updating the Count for the then-modern day.

Scott LeBrun This attempt by Hammer to keep their Dracula franchise going is amusing, to say the least: they bring him hissing and biting into the 20th century, as a modern day disciple of the count resurrects him. Dracula then becomes a man on a mission, determined to get his revenge on the current generation(s) of Van Helsings. Once again played by Sir Christopher Lee, Drac sets his sights on Jessica (Stephanie Beacham), the comely granddaughter of an occult expert, played with his usual sophistication and sincerity by Peter Cushing.The potential to see an old fashioned sort of character way out of his element in the swinging London of the early 1970s is wasted, as Dracula never leaves an abandoned church (not on screen, anyway). A little of Drac does go a long way, even though fans of Sir Christopher might wish he were given a little more to do. The focus of this sequel is on the other characters, and there's so much talk / exposition going on that it robs the film of some effectiveness; there's just not that much horror. (There is, of course, the requisite neck biting, and a rather bloody occult ceremony that is the highlight of the film.) The disco style music is priceless at times, giving the proceedings a very humorous quality.Cushing, not surprisingly, makes all the difference with his performance. He could say just about anything and you'd buy into it. Still, the supporting cast is good, especially Christopher Neame as the intense Johnny Alucard (*that's* a pretty clumsy clue), Michael Coles as the naturally skeptical police inspector, Marsha A. Hunt as Gaynor, and luscious Caroline Munro as Laura, a regrettably minor part.Director Alan Gibson is no Terence Fisher, but he does an acceptable job in what is mostly an average shocker for its time, mostly worth recommending to devotees of the cast and genre. It does manage to deliver a solidly entertaining finale.Six out of 10.