Taste the Blood of Dracula.

Review #1159: Taste the Blood of Dracula.

Cast: 
Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Geoffrey Keen (William Hargood), Gwen Watford (Martha Hargood), Linda Hayden (Alice Hargood), Peter Sallis (Samuel Paxton), Anthony Corlan (Paul Paxton), Isla Blair (Lucy Paxton), John Carson (Jonathan Secker), Martin Jarvis (Jeremy Secker), Ralph Bates (Lord Courtley), Roy Kinnear (Weller), and Michael Ripper (Inspector Cobb) Directed by Peter Sasdy.

Review: 
Oooh, a Dracula film. October already had Interview with the Vampire and Dracula vs. Frankenstein for some vampire action, but I've had a desire to go back to the Hammer Dracula films, which I last covered in 2016. With this review, there is only two other Hammer Dracula films left with Lee in the main role (Scars of Dracula and Dracula A.D. 1972), although there were two other Hammer Dracula films without Lee (The Brides of Dracula and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires). In any case, I'll try to get around to those in due time. 

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968) was a fine piece of entertainment, having a collection of cliches and flair that worked out to make it work for the franchise. It had a few interesting characters along with some compelling moments with a worthwhile climax. The development of the sequel certainly had a bit of a bumpy road to it, since the original intent was to not have Lee back as Dracula. By this point in time, Lee was not particularly interested in continuing to play the role for Hammer Films, although if he was given the right amount of salary, he certainly would come back. With a desire to not pay him (or perhaps tired of having to try and convince Lee to come back), the original script by Anthony Hinds featured Bates being the main villain, since he drinks the blood of Dracula before convulsing and beaten to death by the people who bought Dracula's belongings. Yes, right before Dracula perished in the previous film, he happened to encounter some random guy and perished right in front of him and he got the idea to collect not only the powder of his blood but also his cape and brooch. In any case, the idea to have Bates (infused with the spirit of Dracula) as the villain was vetoed by Warner Bros, the American distributor for these films, who wanted Lee back. He certainly seemed fine with the film, describing it as having "Good cast, good production, good story -- except that Dracula didn't really belong in it!". He wasn't too fond of having the films be made so closely with the others, and he felt that audiences grew tired of it, which he said could apply to him as well. In one account, he was apparently convinced to keep doing the role in part because the producers would tell him about the people that would lose work if he didn't keep doing the role for more films. In any case, 1970 was quite the year for him as Dracula. Not only did he play the role in this film, he also played the role in Count Dracula (directed by Jesús Franco that was released one month before this film) and Scars of Dracula (released by Hammer Films six months after the success of this film).

There isn't much of Dracula this time around, with bare dialogue but quite a few shots of Lee and his hypnotic eyes. Honestly, I could care less about the conflict between the elders and their offspring and the hypocrisy from the former - I'm more interested in the ridiculousness of the fact that Dracula is getting revenge for his servant (Bates) being killed by the group - as if Dracula suddenly cares about anybody other than himself. Actually, it's strange that he is brought back at all through a ceremony where someone drinks the mixed blood of himself and Dracula. Would Dracula have been brought back if the other guy hadn't been killed quickly by the elders? When I think about Dracula films, I don't think about scenes involving an old man drunkenly trying to whip his daughter for seeing her boyfriend, I instead think about the Count trying to somehow use people to get what he wants. Perhaps it is supposed to be a reflection on the times, but really it just inspires my eyes to wander for what should be a more interesting horror film. Lee (in his fourth turn at the role for Hammer) doesn't really have much to do, but he at least shines when he needs to show some presence. At least he speaks a few words more than he did when compared to the other films. Keen plays an unsavory hypocrite okay, but waiting for his character to be stalked by Dracula proves more interesting. Hayden, Corlan, and Blair make up the young group who encounter Dracula in their own respective ways, but none of them are too particularly interesting to follow along with. The ending is a bit ridiculous. This time around, it's not the sun, water or a stake that gets him, instead it is him being taken down by a church being restored to its sanctity and being overwhelmed by its power that makes him fall and crumble into dust. The film feels like a mess, feeling confused over where it wants to go as a film. It isn't too particularly scary nor over-the-top to make it other than just something to pass the time waiting for Dracula, though at least there is some moments of blood and gore through its run-time (95 minutes for the uncut edition and 91 for the cuts in the US release) that may prove fine for others. I found the movie to be pretty average and not quite as good as the other previous installments. It isn't the best or worst of the bunch, and perhaps it will serve its purpose if you're in the right mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.