Hottoceame The Age of Commercialism

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Scott LeBrun The last of the period Dracula films from Hammer finds Sir Christopher Lee in fine form. He's especially evil and sadistic as he goes about doing what he does best. The prologue sees him resurrected (in a rather novel way), and soon targeted by the nearby villagers, who attempt to burn down his castle. Some time later, an insatiable young rascal named Paul (Christopher Matthews) ends at Castle Dracula in an odd turn of events. When he disappears, his brother Simon (Dennis Waterman) and Simons' girlfriend Sarah (Jenny Hanley) come looking for him, and they must do battle with the nefarious Count.The screenplay by Anthony Hinds is contrived and doesn't always make sense, but director Roy Ward Baker delivers an agreeable shocker. It stands out from other Hammer Draculas by the nature of its violence and dark tone. The prologue ends in a horrible, fatal way for a number of characters. The studio once again is to be commended for their commitment to atmosphere, as there are some spooky shots here and there. Some tension is derived from the fact that the only way into the Counts' private room is a window. The special effects tend towards the unconvincing, at least in terms of the prop bats that pop up throughout. Typically grandiose James Bernard music is a heavy asset. There's a recurring element of comedy (such as the law officers), but not too much of it.Some of the supporting performances aren't all that hot, but the ladies (also including the very appealing Wendy Hamilton as the brave Julie, Delia Lindsay, and Anouska Hempel) are sexy and ravishing. Patrick Troughton is a joy as Draculas' somewhat loyal servant Klove, Michael Gwynn delivers gravitas as a helpful priest, and Michael Ripper (what a treat it is to see him in any Hammer film) has a field day as one of the most common stereotypes in Gothic horror: the hostile, decidedly unhelpful citizen who's always turning outsiders away.This is a good entry in this series that does manage a novel way of dispatching Dracula at the end.Seven out of 10.

classicsoncall I'm by no means an authority on vampire lore, but it seems to me a plain old cross shouldn't send Count Dracula (Christopher Lee) into a tizzy the way it does here when he's about to put the bite on poor gal Sarah (Jenny Hanley). I thought it had to be an actual crucifix with the image of Christ on the Cross. Oh, and another thing, it seemed to me that the cross that Sarah shows the Priest (Michael Gwynn) at the frontier inn was a bit smaller than the one Dracula experienced when he went for that mouthful. Oh well, no big deal I guess.I get a kick out of the reviewers on this board who make their claim that this is either the best or the worst of the Hammer/Lee Dracula flicks. I don't know, this one seemed pretty good to me as far as it goes, with Christopher Lee exuding absolute evil as the famed vampire. He takes quite a few victims in this story, some by himself and even more by way of that bat roaming around the countryside. In terms of visuals, I thought this one offered quite a few gruesome victims, like those at the desecrated church and the loyal but disaffected assistant Klove (Patrick Troughton). Man, the scars on his back looked quite nasty, but almost tame by comparison to victim Paul (Christopher Matthews), who's impersonation of a slab of beef was downright hideous.But it wasn't all horror. This might be the best Hammer flick when it comes to featuring women's cleavage in a prominent role. You had Julie (Wendy Hamilton) at the inn and Tania (Anouska Hempel) at the Count's castle, but Sarah had the most interesting camera angles making it a bit difficult to concentrate on the story. Maybe the cinematographer just couldn't help himself.Back to my earlier comment on vampire lore. I was a little surprised at the finale when Dracula got taken out by a bolt of lightning to the iron spike he was wielding, thereby going out in a blaze of vampire glory. While all the time Sarah's beau (Dennis Waterman) was trying to figure out a way to defeat the Count. When all was said and done, it actually looked pretty simple, Simon.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a sequel to Taste the blood of Dracula. It is one of the best sequels ever. This very scary. It has great special effects. It also has a great story line. This movie as great acting. Dracula is resurrected. And continues his rain of terror. This is one of the scariest movies ever made. If you like really scary movies. Then you need to see this movie. It is very intense. Dracula A.D 1972 is a little better. The satanic rites of Dracula is also a little better. This is the sixth hammer Dracula movie and it is scarier then the first five. This is scary then The Exorcist. IF this movie does not scary you then no movie will. This movie is a must see.

Theo Robertson This is considered the weakest entry of Hammer's Dracula franchise and from the outset you can see what the problem is - try and sum up the plot of the film in a one line summary ? Difficult isn't it because while several things happen they don't add up to very much at all and it suffers from the most ridiculous demise seen for Dracula in any filmThe cast are fairly non descript with the exception of Patrick Troughton straight out of his three year stint as the title character in a painfully underwritten role in DOCTOR WHO , Dennis Waterman who only sticks out as he attempts and fails to do a posh voice and an Oscar worthy performance from Jenny Hanley . Actually it's not her performance that's outstanding but if the Academy had an award for " Best Cleavage Seen In A Film in 1970 " she'd have won it Now I come to think of it the problem with the Hammer studio is that they were more interested in cleavage rather than developing a story which is not a million miles away from Hollywood who develop a story around CGI . Make your own mind as to what's preferable