A list of the movies we covered as part of the Fifteenth season of my youtube channel ‘TYTD Reviews’ (Sep-Dec 2024)
http://www.youtube.com/TYTDReviews
…plus 6 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/list/tytd-reviews-season-15-films/
A list of the movies we covered as part of the Fourteenth season of my youtube channel ‘TYTD Reviews’ (Feb-June 2024)
…plus 7 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/list/tytd-reviews-season-14-films/
The middle film in the ‘Karnstein Trilogy’ flanked by ‘Twins of Evil’ and ‘The Vampire Lovers, ‘Lust for a Vampire’ was a first time watch for me today, but having seen ‘Twins of Evil’ I feel I encountered the same problems with this film, as I did with that one.
The plot revolves around a recently opened all girls boarding school in Eastern Europe with a…lets say ‘eccentric’ set of teachers. ranging from ‘Giles’ who is obsessed with the local ‘Karnstein’ family, believing them to well and truely be vampires. through to a headmistress whos poured her entire life savings into the academy and is more than happy to sweep ‘incidents’ under the rug if it keeps the prestige of the school in check.
We open by introducing ourselves to Richard LeStrange a travelling author who is to take up residency at the local school as the new English Lit teacher. almost immediatley Richard gets caught up with ‘Mircalla’ a new student to the academy with a captivating gaze…Indeed, theres more to Mircalla than meets the eye…Shes a vampire, thats…thats whats more than meets the eye.
The ressurected daughter of the count and countess Karnstein – Original name ‘Carmilla’ her motives in going to the academy arnt entirely clear, but at a guess, its to have her fill of the student body and maybe recruit a few new servents for the Karnsteins. Unfortunately this is disrupted however when Richard falls head over heels in love with Carmilla, a feeling she resiprocates.
and thuse a complex romance plays out, with Richard slowly gaining an awareness as to what Carmilla is, Giles also slowly piecing things together and Carmilla slowly but surely ‘dissapearing’ more and more students…its only a matter of time before parents start asking questions and the pair find themselves in a perilous situation.
And I for one really enjoyed this film. pretty much across the board it did everything I’d want out of a Hammer vampire movie, it easily blew most of the ACTUAL ‘Dracula’ films out of the water. theres just one element of this that I wasnt quite as fond of…
On the script front, we have a well paced, decently plotted, solidly toned work with strong, complex characters (for Hammer) interesting and complex scenarios and realtionships that are played out in a way that feels genuine. solid dialogue for the most part thats engaging and enjoyable. and a solid 3 act structure that only falters slightly in the closing minutes (and that isnt inherently due to the script, more due to clumsy editing and budget limitations).
I enjoyed pretty much every aspect of the script apart from one. and thats the overtly sexual tone of the whole thing. Dont get me wrong, I enjoy some eroticism in my horror movies, I like a bit of playfulness and I can absolutely appreciate the boundaries this film pushed for the time in showing lesbian relationships in cinema at a time where homosexuality had only recently been decriminalised. However; this era of Hammer is often referred to as ‘Playboy Hammer’ and thats kind of what puts me off. theres a lot of clearly staged out ‘Glamour’ moments that arnt relevent to the plot, take away from the weight and tone of the overall production and are quite literally just there because sex sells.
I wont begrudge anyone who DOES enjoy that kind of thing. but for me? it pulls me out of the action, because its so blatently just…THERE for the sake of being there, that it almost becomes comedic when the cast will, for VERY little reason, randomly start just taking their clothes off. the shift into ‘soft focus’ mode and the somewhat border softcore porn dialogue shifts only further pull me out of this one. I had similar issues with ‘Twins of Evil’ and if anything, its even more overt in this one.
I dont think it ruins the film at all mind, but it did stop me from outright loving this film entirely, because those moments (combined with the ending which is supposed to be an incredibly dramatic and tragic event…but due to lack of budget and a ropey set of cuts makes it accidentally hilarious) snapped me back into the room and made me realise that someone, somewhere in the production of this film decided to hard turn it into a ‘male gaze’ feature…and thats a shame.
Otherwise? Barring the finale bad edit. I loved everything about this film. the direction feels EXACTLY like what Hammer should have been doing all along, pulling modern 70s film making styles into gothic style storytelling and mixing them together into a ‘best of both worlds’ type scenario. It looks fresh, feels great, isnt afraid to experiment and the cast are clearly having fun with a less strict environment to work with.
The cine is rich, vibrant and delightful. rock solid composition, hearty amounts of B-roll, experimentation with processing and film effects. and, for the most part, some decent sequence building. No notes, I loved it.
Michael Johnson as Lestrange is about a strong a leading man Hammer has had since Cushing and Lee. He’s believable for the most part, which, in this studio is honestly a rare thing. he delivers his lines with solid and powerful emotion, has a great sense of physicality and gets a good range of emotions to work with across the runtime. he’s great!
Yutte Stensgaard as Carmilla gave me a case of the ‘Hammana hammana hammana’s’ a genuinely delightful performance again with solid range and she really nails the vampiric elements. Definitely one of my favourite ‘Hammer girls’.
the rest of the cast..well, they’re just kind of your standard Hammer background fodder…fine enough, but a mixed bag of fun and believable performances, to the downright awful. im into that kind of thing though so its all good.
Add to that a VERY refreshing soundtrack that really enhances the visuals of the piece and has some fantastic timing in terms of how its utilised across the films runtime…and I have very little to complain about honestly. Its a film thats maybe a little on the slow side to get going, but once its up and whirring. its about as solid a work as Hammer produced during its first wave.
Very much enjoyed, Very much recommended.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/lust-for-a-vampire/
The ‘Official’ end to Hammers ‘Dracula’ franchise is a continuity destroying co-production with martial arts master studio ‘Shaw Bros’ and…its a tense relationship of a movie right off the bat.
Putting aside the fact they couldnt get Christopher Lee back to cameo as Count Dracula for a handful of scenes so they had to get his non union chinese equivilent. tensions between the Hammer team and the cast and crew provided from Shaw bros ran hot due to a mixture of language and cultural barriers. Which…y’know, nothing shows a sign of a surefire quality film like the director screaming at the actors in english when they primarily only spoke Mandarin because they wouldnt stop spitting on set. we’re in for a wild time.
So the film opens in 1804 and we’re introduced to a traveller who stumbles on the castle of Count Dracula, once awoken. Drac does a ‘Jason goes to hell’ and essentially ‘possesses’ this travellers body as a way to circumvent his inability to leave his castle grounds due to cleansing enchantments that have been placed around the perimeters.
Once free of the castle, Dracula travells to China, where he takes on 7 servents who are all highly trained martial artists and warriors. Its said that every full (golden) moon, anyone who dares set foot outside of the walls of the local village, will meet a terrible fate at the hand of the golden monsters.
We then jump forward in time to 1904, and Peter Cushing is once again back as Dr. Van Hellsing…which instantly botches the chonology because Dracula AD 1972 establishes that Van Hellsing dies fighting dracula in 1872. So how is he in 1904 China? AND that he was born in 1814, which would make him 90 years old at the time this film takes place…AND that ‘Horror of Dracula’ apparently takes place in 1885. Any which way you cut it the continuity is bollocks’d. Because even if you say ‘AD 1972’ isnt canon. and that ONLY ‘Horror of Dracula’ counts as continuity to this one, and lets say we timeshifted Van hellsing so that he was born at a point where he could be in his 40s at the point ‘Horror of Dracula’ took place. it’d STILL be screwed continuity wise because the average life expectency of someone born in the 1830s and 40s was 45. Even with the timeshift Van Hellsing would have been in his late 60s when the events of this film take place…Thats not even to mention that Van Hellsing has a son in this film that gets ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION in ANY of the other Dracula movies, and if he DID exist, then Van Hellsing is clearly a bad father because he has ZERO trace of his existence anywhere near him…
Anyway, im getting bogged down here. in 1904, Van Hellsing is over in china teaching students about history and mysticisms and uses the ‘Golden Vampire’ mythology as a way to try and convince the students that, with their being confirmations of Vampirism in Europe, it stands to reason similar events would be happening in Asia too. They dont believe him, but one student who does decides to stick around, and after discussing it further with Lee and sharing his own knowledge around the folk lore, the pair realise that if this is true, there are still 6 golden vampires out there to take out.
And! after a surprise attack by the vampires one night, Van Hellsing will team up with fighters from the village to take the battle of the vampires cross plaines to see an end to the remaining 6 golden vampires and to rid the world of the head vampire…who MAY ACTUALLY BE DRACULA?!?! SHOCK HORROR!!!
Yeahhh…this one didnt really do anything for me honestly, I like some Shaw bros films, I like Hammer…but it seems like we got the bits a dislike the most from both companies slammed together for this one.
The script has Hammers prolonged endless walking and exposition dumping, which creeps in around the end of the first act and basically stays with the film right up to the final fight. While also having to deal with the excessively long, drawn out and rather dull martial arts fight scenes that I get hung up with on the Shaw Bros part.
Dont get me wrong, I love a good fight scene, fight choreogaphy is a wonderful thing when done right. But here? its kind of generic, nothing to eye popping and it all feels very much like martial artists going through the motions.
I’ve read that there are 3 different cuts of this movie, a 73 minute version used for double features, an 87 minute version (which I watched) and a Shaw Bros edited 118 minute version that has a lot more extended fight sequences and exposition for the asian cast. I dont know if im missing a crucial part of the narrative here. But the 87 minute cut seems to get the main plot ‘kill the 6 remaining golden vampires’ out of the way in the first 20 minutes. and then the rest of the movie is walking, exposition dumping and elongated fight scenes that dont really enhance what was established in those opening 20-25 minutes or so.
The tone is played largely seriously, the pacing is glacial once again, theres very little charisma or charm here. its militantly shot to just, get what needed to be got and get out. Which really doesnt help warm the audience to the characters, their situation or their scenario.
Part of this may be on me. My copy had quite ropey audio that had everyones dialogue tracks on different levels. and my copy abruptly ended 8 minutes off the ACTUAL ending due to some random internet issue, meaning I had to source the final 8 minutes from youtube. But even with that being the case. I dont believe I missed so much of the depth and nuance of this piece to have made it unintelligable. I just think this film isnt that coherent and isnt very well structured script wise.
Cine and direction wise its a bit of a fudge, but it works fine enough, we get some really nice location and set work here, the composition of shots are a bit ‘run and gun’ ad hoc, it feels again like there wasnt enough time to run through sequence structuring while filming so they just shot what was needed, got as much Broll and coverage as they could afford and then moved on…which makes things feel a bit haphazard.
While I appreciated the rather nice coloured lighting work on this one, which was a genuine quality uptick for the production. Ultimately this one just wasnt my vibe visually which is a shame. Still! at least it did try a bit of experimentation and i’ll take this over Hammers tried and tested method of just…making the same film in the same sets and locations 3 times over stealing from themselves and stitching them together to create hybrids of scenes from their movies all rolled into a ‘new’ film…
Performance wise, Cushing is fine as van hellsing. But everyone else is dire. not dislikable…in fact, they do what they can to the point that it adds almost a goofy edge to this film. But these are not good performances by any stretch and I found myself kind of mesmorised by what I was seeing with the performances given. mixed to poor physical animation. and lacklustre fight choreography hamties this production HARD.
and the score is a mix of hammer and shaw scoring. its better than any one of them doing the whole score outright…but its still generic as hell and did nothing for me.
‘7 golden vampires’ is marginally better than some of the worst ‘Dracula’ entries Hammer ever produced. By the skin of its teeth i’d say it was better than ‘Satanic Rites’ if only because it does have some interesting moments going on in places. But this being the final ‘canon’ Hammer dracula movie? is insane to me. its a total nothing of a movie. ‘The Dragon Lives again’ has more of a claim to being the ‘final hammer dracula movie’ than this film does.
Worth watching at least once just for the history of the piece. I didnt much care for it honestly, but I can appreciate why others would like it.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-legend-of-the-7-golden-vampires/
And so, we arrive at the penultimate Hammer ‘Dracula’ film. And…essentially the end of the story for Christopher Lee and Peter Cushings interpretations of the Vamp and the slayer…and while Cushing would go on to play Van Hellsing one more time in ‘The Seven Golden Vampires’ That film takes place in the early 19th century and is *technically* a prequel to ‘Horror of Dracula’. Whereas this film is a sequel to ‘Dracula A.D. 1972’ and takes place a year after the events of that film. So…you’d think they’d want to see the franchise out with a bit of a bang…they dont.
So the big change with this film over the other entries is that, in the UK at this point in time UK cop dramas were really starting to take off, you had things like ‘New Scotland Yard’ and ‘The Sweeny’ taking off alongside things like ‘Van Der Valk’ and Hammer films saw this popularity and thought ‘What if Dracula, but COP show?!’ and thats…not an inherently bad idea…But unfortunately, to me at least. they seem to have made the slowest, lamest cop show film in history.
So the film opens with an undercover cop escaping a black ritual cult who are attempting to ressurect demons and devils they can connect with. He’s badly injured but gets back to the station and with his final breaths is able to relay what he saw at these Black Masses. featuring tales of rooster murder and blood on naked virgins.
The police are exploring every avenue to try and get evidence these cultists are breaking the law. And eventually they relent and fall back on there previous ‘black magic’ contact, Van Hellsing. Who happily pops up and begins doing some research of his own. after a while he starts to put together that there may be something alltogether vampiric going on, and it doesnt take long for it to be revealed that the cultists have ressurected Dracula and he’s using them as servents to help…probably his most coherent (if not VERY idiotic plan) in the entire franchise…which I wont spoil here.
Oh! also Van Hellsings daughter is back (played…somewhat surprisingly here by national sweetheart Joanna Lumley) and…she basically gets nothing to do. Which is a real shame as I was hoping we’d maybe see some development from A.D. 1972, with her maybe taking on an espionage/detective role alongside her grandfather in finding out whats going on…But no…they treat her a bit like a lemming, sending her ahead in dangerous terrain to see if anything kicks off…then pulling her out of the action so the police and Van Hellsing can get in there and save the day…
Now, dont get me wrong…Like I say, I think pivoting and reframing a Vampire horror film as a Cop show style thriller, where the vampire reveal IS a genuine shock could have been a great idea…But this film is called ‘The Satanic rites of Dracula’. Meaning, it would have been a bigger surprise if Dracula HADNT been in this film.
As such, what we end up with is a script that feels like the big plot twist is spoiled before the opening titles even finish. At which point we’re basically waiting for Dracula to turn up…which he doesnt do for nearly 40 minutes. Imagine if they just up front told you who the killer was in a murder mystery…and then expected you to sit there for the full 90 minutes while they went through the motions while pretending they HADNT made it abundently clear who the murderer was up front…Thats this movie.
It almost feels a bit like its fallen back on the old tropes from the 60s movies, but with a modern location. It opens kind of strong before settling into an exposition heavy ALL tell NO show situation for the majority of the 2nd act and opening of the 3rd…and then they just kind of…MAKE UP a feeble and frankly rubbish ending as an excuse to stop the film. Rather than giving these two iconic roles a decent send off.
The pacing is slow burn at first, but all but fizzles out until the last 10 minutes when THE most nonsense finale happens and then it full on crashes out to credits.
The characters arnt particularly interesting, I had no investment in any of them, the dialogue was incredibly dense and (for the most part) poorly written. the pacings all over the place…this feels like a very rushed script without much care given to wht its actually trying to say or do.
Same goes for the direction and cine. After a rush of fresh air in ‘A.D. 72’ we have a massively scaled back production. 3-4 locations basic camera movements, no experimentation, low effort sequence building, everythings incredibly flat profile. Its a dead eyed production, it’s doing what it needs to do, nothing more, nothing less just going through the motions to get a cheap looking film made.
Performances? well Christopher Lee was doing alright untill he started doing a phoney foreign accent to try and trick Van Hellsing…then he lost me, Cushing is largely wasted here, and despite the pair of them giving a DAMN good try and making this work, its just too low/no effort for even THESE two to try and save it. The supporting cast, honestly? might as well have not been there for how much of an impression they left. I couldnt tell you a single charictaristic of ANY of the extended cast outside of Dracula, Van Hellsing and his daughter…they’re all just avatars. spewing exposition and running around trying to look scared…thats all there is.
And the soundtrack? has already dated terribly. This is 1973, the year of ‘The Wicker Man’ and ‘The Exorcist’ and I now FULLY understand why Chrisopher Lee waived his apparence fee for ‘Wicker Man’ because if i’d been stuck on THIS film? I’d wanna sod off to the farthest flug parts. of the shetland isles and film a weird folk horror about pagenism.
In some ways…as far as endings go, this is worse than it ending badly. If it had ended badly, I could have at least commented on how distinctly badly it ended…this? this is nothing. Just a total nothing of a movie that adds nothing, does nothing other than waste the audiences time and draw a line under two of the greatest portrayals of these characters in cinematic history…and thats kind of crazy to me. Not recommended…at ALL.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-satanic-rites-of-dracula/
A TOTAL Monkeys paw of a movie, after spending the last 4 installments of this franchise BEGGING…BEGGING for the production office at hammer to drag their franchises kicking and screaming into the 70s, they grant my wish…But with the cruel twist of fate being that they decide to center the entire film around 70s youth culture…and the average age of people involved in this film was 86…I sincerely believe noone involved in the production of this film had ever met anyone under the age of 65.
‘Dracula A.D. 1972’ is a break from the ongoing plotting of ‘Dracula’. Indeed, its seemingly intended as something of a ‘Final Chapter’ given the text crawl at the end of the movie, and I for one could NOT be more conflicted about the end result of this film if I tried…
The plot opens in London in 1872, and sees Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing reunited for the first time since ‘Horror of Dracula’ AS Dracula and Van Hellsing. During a fight on top of a freerunning Horse and carriage, a calamitous crash ends the life of both the count and his slayer. However, one of Draculas servents is on the scene, and collects remnants of the count for later usage.
Post burial, we jump forward to the hip and happening times of London 1972. and the kids are certainly bopping up a jive daddio to this new funkadelic sound of the revoution y’dig?! (I’ll…I’ll stop now…)
We’re introduced to a group of friends led by ‘Johnny Alucard’ a rebellious youth whos appearence to Malcolm McDowell is downright uncanny (absolutely intentional given this came out a year after ‘A Clockwork Orange’) Alucard is always looking for thrills and decides it would be really ‘hip’ and ‘happening’ to do a ‘Black Mass’ just to see what would happen.
The gang are largely on board, but one of them Jessica, is somewhat reluctant. It’s revealed that Jessica is a Van Hellsing, a descendent of Dracula’s Slayer. And her grandfather is a believer and studier of the occult (played ALSO by Peter Cushing!)
Anyway; the gang do the rituals and Alucard (probably intentionally) ressurects Dracula, who almost immediately bites Alucard AND a willing member of the friend group who opted in on the ritual while the others fled in fear. turning the pair into deciples, with the rest of the film being Johnny slowly trying to convert the rest of the friend group to vampirism, with both Johnny AND Draculas eyes firmly on Jessica as the big prize.
And so! with the help of the met police, Jessica and her Grandfather must team up to fight the forces of evil once more and FINALLY lay Dracula to rest.
And honestly? I was kind of blown away with this one, I had the priviladge of seeing it at the theater many MANY years ago and thought it was absolutely nuts back then, and my feelings havent really changed with time. My biggest issue with it is simply that it doesnt really pick a lane, its trying to be an ultra campy, border pastiche of the films that came before it. While also genuinely being a quite well made contemporary (to 1972) horror film. The two things cant really co-exist. You cant really simultaineously be a ‘so bad its good’ campy over the top hamtastic mess of a movie thats actually really well made, refreshing and entertaining…But thats what this movies doing, and it makes me kind of love and hate it in equal measures.
For a starters, the script is all OVER the place. A hot mess in all the best ways. while the story is pretty simplistic. it’s effective in its storytelling ability and very much feels like a sincere attempt to try and modernise Hammer for young adult audiences, after coasting on the fumes of the early 60s for the better part of a decade. Unfortunately (and as mentioned) this thing has been written and produced by a group of elderly people who clearly havent ever met a young person after 1958. Which means all the dialogue is INCREDIBLY cringey, awkward and reads like an 80 year old guy trying to write a teenager…Not helped by the casting decision to make all these ‘late teen/early 20 somethings’ AT LEAST 30-35 years old.
It creates such a weird texture to what is ultimatley a really well paced and entertaining little film. adding a layer of awkwardness that this thing really didnt need. The more I think about this film, the more it feels to me like a kind of ‘self aware’ parody of a Dracula movies…an almost peevish attempt on the part of the production company to say ‘SEE! SEE! THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ASK FOR ‘MODERN DRACULA’ MOVIES! LOOK HOW RUBBISH IT IS!’ and then when the audience respond with semi confusion and hilarity, they just kind of grumbled and shrunk away to plan…I dunno…’Frankenstein 27′ or whatever it was they were working on at that point.
Its plotting is all over the place with multiple strands ranging from Peter Cushing working with the police to figure out exactly why people keep turning up with bite marks, completely drained of blood. Jessicas plot of slowly realising Johnny is a dangerous man and trying to figure out the best way to stop him/save her friends/save herself. Johnnys plot of working with Dracula to get more servents. Draculas plot of trying to get Jessica. its all over the place, but in the right mindset, I could easily see this being a very enjoyable time.
What I really love about this movie is the direction and cine. the brief of ‘bring Hammer into the 70s’ hits this film like opening a window in a room full of stale farts. crisp, clear, creative direction that really brings to life the rebuilding of early 70s london and its surrounding club and parklife are brought into reality in sizzling colour. This film looks incredible and is a veritable time capsule of fashion from the time. If nothing else, the film simply existing and looking as engaging and interesting as it does is enough to easily put this one in the top 3 Dracula movies made by Hammer.
We also have some extroadinary lighting work here, coloured gels are used heavily and stylish and richly detailed set designs for the church’s and nightclubs featured throughout are welcome and visually appealing. Theres some gorgeous shots and sequence work pleasent here that really help bring things front and center. some LOVELY depth of field work. This is probably the first Dracula movie since ‘Brides of Dracula’ that i’ve seen where I feel confident in saying that its visual style and identity are almost as distinct and original as the first film. a genuinely enjoyable watch.
Only helped by some pretty decent performances too! again we’re swinging the pendulum wildly between ‘Campy fun’ and ‘Actually pretty solid performance. On the one side, Lee, Cushing and Stephanie Beacham are probably at the franchises best here in their respective roles. they’re really trying to bring some of their best to the roles here and it pays off, with arguably some of the best Dracula and Van Hellsing moments of the entire franchise. and solid retuning turns for Lee and Cushing in particular.
On the other end though we have (Not) Malcolm McDowell Christopher Neame as Johnny Alucard, a campy, snooty sort who has just the right level of slime to make him really stand out as a proper ‘baddie’ of this era. Im still not entirely sure if I like his performance here or not. But he brings a campy presence in his turn that did ensure I stayed firmly glued to my set for the full duration. the majority of the ‘youths’ in the supporting cast too all do varying levels of camp ranging from overly dramatic death sequences right through to just pretending they’re members of Monty Python…it garners mixed results from me ranging from pleasently watchable to irritating.
AND FINALLY! AFTER 3 FILMS OF THE SAME MONOTONOUS ORCHESTRAL DRONING…WE HAVE A NEW SOUNDTRACK STYLE! It’s funky 70s tastic soul and funk style and I absolutely loved it, intercut with some early synthy pieces. it really helped bring the film to life for me in the best possible way.
In either case, I didnt really lose with ‘Dracula AD 1972’ I was very much welcoming of the modernising of the technical aspects of the production, while also VERY much being there for the hammier stranger moments. Im VERY surprised that ‘Rifftrax’ havent got there hands on this one yet as I think it would be a perfect candidate. for the first time in a long time, i’d say this one was actually kind of underrated, and if the other ‘Dracula’ sequels have kind of put you off. this one may win you back a bit…I didnt outright LOVE it. But I really appreciated what it was trying to do.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/dracula-ad-1972/
The mediocrity continues, and once again I find myself in a position where Im faced with a Hammer Dracula movie that ONCE AGAIN is a drawn out and overly slow plot with a handful of interesting or fun nuggets wedged firmly into its core. This time up? It’s ‘Scars of Dracula’ the second Dracula movie for Hammer in 1970, and another attempt of mish mashing ideas from the older films and other films Hammers produced into a semi incoherent vampire flick.
This time? we get essentially 2 movies in one! And even Hammer couldnt be bothered to check their own continuity as this film opens shortly after the events of ‘Taste the Blood of Dracula’ and for some reason Draculas ghostly ashes have been moved from an abandoned Church in London to a room of Draculas European castle…It could maybe be said that his returning Henchman ‘Klove’ played by the ever wonderful Patrick Troughton maybe stole his remains and lay them in situe at the castle…But it isnt really explained.
Plot 1 runs the first half of the movie or so as we’re introduced to ‘Paul’ (im not sure if this is supposed to be the same Paul from the last film, just recast…or another guy named Paul…but either way…)PAUL! Is a bit of a ‘Jack the lad’ sleeping around with various women and acting the chancer. We’re introduced to him in the bedroom of a young lady, who happens to be the daughter of the towns Bergermeister. When Paul reveals he’s been lying to this woman about attending nightschool (when in fact he’s been using it as an excuse to go and hang out with his friends and sleep around) the woman goes to her father and accuses him of raping her. At which point ther Bergermeister summons his guards to arrest Paul.
Lucky for Paul, he manages to make it to his friends birthday party and give them a present, before the guards burst in and try to arrest him. But Paul makes a quick escape out of a window and winds up riding a driverless horse drawn carriage into the woods and up to Draculas Castle.
Oh! I forgot to mention, how is Dracula ressurected in this film? well…a comedically awful prop vampire bat drips some blood on his ashes and ressurects him. Dont ask questions. ANYWAY.
Paul arrives at the castle, Klove lets him in and Dracula offers to put the chap up for the night. Little does Paul know that Draculas handmaid is in fact ALSO a vampire, and when she gets flirty with Paul, its his neck thats on the line! Paul plans a daring escape, but we dont get to see what happens to him, as we crash straight into plot 2! which is where Pauls friends start to worry that he hasnt been seen since the night he jumped out the window, so they decide to go and try to find him.
At a local inn, the keeper and his patrons are quiet, but the innkeepers maid spills the beans in private, telling the pair that they saw Pauls carriage head up to the castle. And so…thats plot 2, Pauls friends going to Draculas castle to try and find Paul, winding up ALSO on the counts menu and Klove and the residents of the castle also trying to kill the couple before the dreaded truth about whats going on is revealed.
In short. as a movie? its fine. Honestly, if it wasnt for the fact that Christopher Lee actually gets some half decent dialogue in this, AND the fact they FINALLY seem to have remembered how to shoot him to look intimidating AND the fact that Patrick Troughton is pretty great as ‘Klove’ in this (Take THAT Jon Pertwee!) this film would actually be pretty dire.
The scripts slow, plodding, basically recycling tropes from other Hammer films and stitching them together into a movie that isnt anything we havent seen before. My biggest issue with the scripting is the same problem I had when I reviewed ‘Taste the Blood of Dracula’ which is that…its 1970. over the next 24-36 months Horror will undergo a transformation that starts with the exploitation genre and ends with ‘The Exorcist’ and ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ and what is this film doing during this great cinematic revolution? rehashing scripts from the late 1950s with very little modernisation.
the pacing is slow, not slowburn…slow. the characters (barring Drac and Klove) are uninteresting, monotonal and this is a film that LOVES to tell over showing, the effects are LITERALLY being recycled from films 6-7 years years ago…and they looked awful THEN. theres no challenge here, no shake up of the genre, no trying new things. its the Baby puree food of ‘Dracula’ movies. Good for someone who may not know WHAT a vampire even is…but not so good if you’ve ever in your life seen ANY vampire movie.
The direction and cine are kind of flat and dull, while this is FAR from ‘Prince of Darkness’ cheap, I do feel we’ve backslid somewhat from ‘Taste the blood’ with a lot more location work and bigger, but emptier set spaces…What really doesnt help this film is the directors pachent for shooting everything wide. It means that, YES. you DO get to look at the majesty of these sprawling set spaces, but it also pulls all the tension, horror and action out of the movie and exposes the lack of finer detail to a heavy detriment.
The cine is fine enough, but again, its creaking. It’s 1970 and this feels like an early 60s storyboarding job, shots are composed fine enough, but its just not built for modern audiences of the time, it’s frustrating, because Im starting to get the feeling like its the company holding back progress, rather than uninspiring directors…or maybe its a bit of both…But in either case, it doesnt feel like a movie of this time period. It almost feels like a throwback, and I can guarenTEE you that audiences of this time were NOT going to watch this for genuine scares. By this point, audiences probably went to laugh at films like this.
The performances once again, are fine, but not great. Troughton and Lee are the best this film has, and they do ‘good’ but not ‘great’, the rest of the cast are animate physically. But ultimately just kind of dull…Because all the script has them doing is running through exposition, it means that they never ACTUALLY get to say or do anything other than recapping what we’ve already seen, or what we already know from previous movies.
And im losing the will to live with the scoring. this is the third film in this series in a row to be scored by the same composer, and honestly? Im starting to think he recorded one score back in 1960 and just sent pitched up/pitched down varients of the same recording for the last 3 movies. its SO dull, it works for what they’re trying to do. but by this point? Im numb to this kind of orchestral work. it might as well be white noise for me.
It feels to me like Hammer made ‘Scars of Dracula’ to hedge their bets in case ‘Taste the Blood of Dracula’ was recieved poorly. I could honestly imagine higher ups at this company being like ‘Well…we dont want to dissapoint people if we offer up a fresh take on the franchise…best to fund a second film thats basically just going through the motions to be safe’
Thing is? I dont even dislike these movies, they’re fine enough. But thats really the frustration with this franchise. Every. Single. One of them is just ‘Fine Enough’, a handful of fun or interesting moments stapled to Grey slop. and its such a shame because, with just a little bit more care, attention and adaptability to the times…these films could have all been great. As it stands. if it wasnt for the fact that im currently going through all the Hammer ‘Dracula’ movies. I’d have probably stopped 2 movies ago…
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/scars-of-dracula/
A new decade, and a new turn for Hammer in one of the more conflicting films i’ve seen from the studio. ‘Taste the Blood of Dracula’ is a bit of a contradiction in film making, an entry in Hammers Dracula series that simultaineously is trying to break with the previous few Hammer Dracula movies and is trying to modernize the style and feel of Hammer on a technical level. While ALSO feeling positively antiquated in the way it handles its themes and tones, the amount of gore or titilation it shows and its storytelling capabilities. Bearing in mind, the Amacus folk horror era is right on this films doorstep, and using Hammer as a base, that studio (and studios like it) would reinvent what Hammer started for new audiences and modern times. By contrast, Hammer is starting to feel behind the times.
The film this time around is presented as a bit of an anthology of sorts. featuring three well respected gentlemen of the community, who behind the scenes lust of the seedy and strange underbelly of society. from Brothels, to strange drinks and drugs. These gentlmen crave debauchery. But a chance encounter with a passerby will change their lives forever.
He is well acquainted with a travelling conman who, by chance, stumbled on Draculas demise at the end of the last film, and…Not one to miss an opportunity, snatched up his cape, clasp, ring and a large vial of his blood. and, with backing from the gents. This stranger is going to unleash untold chaos into their lives, by threatening the ressurection of Count Dracula himself.
However; the ressurection ceremony goes arwy when the gents get the fear and decide they dont want to go any further. When the stranger decides to complete the ritual himself, he scares the gents so much they beat him to death…Only for it THEN to be revealed that this stranger was a follower of Dracula, and that when Drac finds out they’ve killed one of his servents. He’s enraged to the point that he’ll stop at nothing to see the three put into the ground…Even if that means enlisting the help of their own children to do so…
And, despite the somewhat creaky nature of the studio at this time, I really do have a bit of a soft spot for this entry.
The script is a little slowburn, but whereas the other entries felt like they were stalling for time, this one feels like its ACTUALLY trying to slowly build tension and keep a consistent pace. Thats not to say there isnt SOME padding here and there. But what we predominantly have here is a film split across two storylines (Draculas vengence on the Gentlemen, and one of the Gentlemens daughters ‘Alice’ having domestic issues with her father over her wanting to court a young suitor) theres a certain emotional element to this film that hasnt really been seen since ‘Brides of Dracula’ and I feel its handled really rather well.
The act structuring is fairly solid, we have decent characters who feel more complex and engaging than previous efforts. We spend a LOT of time with bad people in this movie, they’re the people who take us on the majority of this journey, and its interesting to see Hammer take that approach after over a decade of monotonous characters who were essentially walking stereotypes for the genre.
In fact, my only gripe really with the film (barring some slight padding issues) is that I dont even really know if this needed necessarily to be a Dracula movie. It could have just as easily been about the Gents accidentally murdering someone and unleashing…just a generic curse on them and their families that would lead to their demise, and it probably would have worked even better than trying to cram a Dracula shaped peg into a not quite so Dracula shaped hole. That and the ending is a bit out of left field and abrupt…Im not entirely sure how Dracula dies in this movie. My best guess is thinking about neat and tidy churches gave him an anurism…
Direction and cine are sharp, feel refreshed, and see a return to a lush and rich feeling sense of set design. Again however; there are some tropes that have persisted from 50s Hammer that are STILL being forced into this film from a technical perspective and it just makes the production feel SO weary against its contemporaries. Just basic shot framings and Experimentation work that feels SO dated. Not to mention the aforementioned lack of interesting gore or fight choreography…It feels like a studio being left in the dust at times in a world thats soon to find itself with the likes of ‘The Wicker Man’, ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ and ‘The Exorcist’…
Performances are solid enough, again, I think a lot of the improvements I feel in this film come simply from giving the characters just a bit more complexity and a sense that they exist in a ‘lived in’ world. Anthony Higgins, Peter Sallis and Geoffrey Keen all play wonderfully as the three gents who wind up on Draculas hitlist. they open in a position of power and these three play a blinder in showing the breakdown of their constitution in the sheer face of fear.
Christopher Lee once again turns up as Dracula, he talks in this one too! I think his performance here is really solid, but the final act fight really wasnt very good, to the point that it made me cringe a couple of times to think that this series first film ended with an extensively choreographed fight sequence between Lee and Cushing using lavishly designed set pieces and spaces…And now here’s Lee…standing on a balcony hurling rocks at someone till he falls over…ugh…
The supporting cast are great too, with Roy Kinnear as the Con man, Linda hayden as Alice and Ralph Bates as Lord Courtley all bringing a real presence and ‘feel’ to this film that has been sorely absent from the last couple of entries. They’re delightful.
And the soundtrack? standard hammer, uninspiring, edited in well…yadda yadda. it does the job, but I always hope for more…
‘Taste the Blood of Dracula’ may have one of the worst film titles Hammers ever done (and they named a film ‘The Snorkel’ once…) But despite its titling. its a surprisingly robust movie that I could actually see myself revisiting at some point, while its maybe a little *too* slowburn for some. This is the first film since ‘Brides of Dracula’ that’s actually held my attention throughout and left me feeling like I could see myself rewatching it again in future…So I guess from me? I’d say recommended and probably worth checking out, especially if your exploring ‘classic’ horror or vampire movies in general.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/taste-the-blood-of-dracula/
‘Dracula has Risen from the Grave’ is a moutful of a film title if ever there was one, and ‘awkward’ is pretty much embedded into this films DNA…Now, I didnt watch this in the most optimised of conditions (it took me twice as long as the runtime because my internet was being an arse) but I think, even in the best of conditions, i’d have probably been less than ‘on board’ with this one.
So the plot picks up one year after the events of ‘Dracula: Prince of Darkness’ But we open with a brief flashback showing a young church ward finding a victim of Dracula in the church’s belltower…Which, in and of itself is a bit of a continuity problem, because; if memory serves Dracula spends about 99% of that movie in the castle grounds or the surrounding woodlands, he went nowhere near a village in that film; letalone attacked enough people to earn a concerned and infamous status for attacking villagers…bearing in mind that Prince of Darkness itself is set 10 years after ‘Horror of Dracula’ and in THAT movie, they emphisize that the village are aware of Dracula, but they have a ‘We dont bother him, he rarely bothers us’ relationship.
In either case, the attack renders the Church ward mute and puts a curse on the church resulting in noone showing up for mass (Oh I do love a good Mass!) When the Bishop for the area turns up and calls the priest out for the totally empty service. The priest makes it clear, noones going to attend a mass there until there is certainty that Draculas dead. So; the Bishop agrees to travel up to Draculas castle and perform a healing exorcism on the grounds to entrap any bad spirits to the grounds of the castle permanently.
However; with this being a Dracula movie, things dont quite go to plan, the Bishop gets seperated from the priest, he performs the service and heads back down the mountain trail, thinking the priest has gone ahead of him, the priest meanwhile bangs his head, and the open wound seeps into a nearby thawed out river and conveniently into the mouth of a semi frozen Dracula. who consumes the blood and is reborn, taking the priest on as a kind of ‘Renfield’ figure.
This then leads us into our main plot which follows Paul, a pastry chef in love with local sweetheart Maria. Pauls an Atheist. And what he DOESNT know is that Marias uncle…is the Bishop. So…that goes well, and to complicate matters further, on seeing Maria. Dracula decides he wants her for one of his ‘Brides’ of the undead…Leading a pastry chef and a Bishop to take on the prince of Darkness to try and free the Priest from the grasps of evil, and end the things once and for all…again.
Its a pretty short and sweet one for me on this one. Its WAY better than ‘Prince of Darkness’ in my opinion, but not *quite* as fun as ‘Brides of Dracula’.
The scripts fine enough, I like that they go back to the lore than victims of Dracula are essentially still themselves, but hunger for blood similarly to Drug addicts. I liked some of the action sequences and the tone of the piece which felt much more grounded after the last films all over the place attempt to ‘find itself’ I thought the act structurings were pretty solid.
But, much like ‘Prince of Darkness’ this thing is SO SLOW at times. its 90 minutes that feels like 120. and while it is peppered throughout with some very interesting and fun moments, the gaps between them where people are largely just sat around or stood dumping village lore or Dracula facts is at times interminable. This isnt slowburn, its pedestrian burn.
The characters are all pretty basic architypes for this genre once again. Though, somewhat mercifully, at least Dracula gets a BIT more complexity than he did in the last entry…Not much by any stretch…But at least he HAS lines and delivers them with something of a menace. Everyone else though? Its weird. It feels almost like a movie made up entirely of background cast members, with noone really being given anything that well and truley makes them stand out.
The dialogue feels overly long winded to the point of it becoming labourious. Its very much in the realms of telling over showing, and while their is a little bit more titlation and gore here than in the last 2 entries, its all EXCEEDINGLY tame by late 60s standards.
The cine and direction ARE however a marked improvement over the last film, we see a return to the rich and lavish setwork of the first couple of entries, and while I dont feel the direction really truely captures the full majesty of those set designs (and…while they are quite a bit closer to the original films aesthetic, they are still a little cheaper looking than the original) It does at least attempt to get close to that with mixed results ultimately.
The cine at least tries in places to strike away from the first two films, rather than desperately trying to redo iconic moments over and over again, theres a certain degree of German expressionism to this film that I really quite liked, and the colour work is quite delightful here honestly. It feels like after the last film, they were keen to not repeat the mistakes they made on this front, and really wanted to try and capture that premium quality that early Hammer was known for, im not going to say its an out and out success. But its better than I expected.
Performance wise, Christopher Lee ACTUALLY has some dialogue in this film (not a lot, but he does!) and he delivers it pretty decently. I think the big problem Lee has here is that the effects budget seems to have been the thing to take the hit when producing this film, meaning his costume is a little cheap and shabby looking, they try to really ‘red up’ Draculas eyes with mixed to poor results, and the director seemingly just, doesnt quite understand how to try and impose menace onto a man of Lee’s stature. Meaning more often than not, while he should be coming across as an imposing and oppressive force. Instead he just looks like a slightly weedy guy in a halloween costume trying to LOOK menacing while having all the ACTUAL menace of a care bear.
The main cast all struggle with the fact that they feel less like main players and more like extras who’ve been given a small promotion. meaning a lot of the time I just didnt really care or feel invested in them because they didnt present themselves as worth investing in. With Ewan Hooper and Rupert Davies as the Priest and the Bishop being the only pairing who really stood out to me across the whole runtime…But otherwise? its a bit of a busted flush.
And as for the soundtrack? its the same kind of Hammer score we’ve heard time and time before, is it good? yeh kinda…is it distinct? it’s Hammer baby…does it make this film standout? ASBOLUTELY NOT.
I cant really flaw the technical elements of this film, its shot fine enough, but the script and casting really let down a film that needed a very specific kind of energy bringing to it. Is it a bad movie? No. I wouldnt go that far. But it feels incredibly padded in places and the plot is somehow slower than crawling speed.
While I would absolutely say this is a step in the right direction after ‘Prince of Darkness’ its really more of a ‘pivot’ movie than one that sees a return to the kind of Hammer I know and love. This thing is absolutely ‘Watchable’ but I dont know if i’d actively choose to watch it again.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/dracula-has-risen-from-the-grave/
Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are the best thing about these films. – Terence Fischer (Car Crash Enthusiast)
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/list/the-hammer-dracula-films-ranked/
TYTD Reviews 