Cast:
Dennis Waterman (Simon Carlson), Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Jenny Hanley (Sarah Framsen), Christopher Matthews (Paul Carlson), Patrick Troughton (Klove), Anouska Hempel (Tania), Michael Ripper (Landlord), and Michael Gwynn (The Priest) Directed by Roy Ward Baker (#1742 - The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires)
Review:
The Hammer rendition of Dracula had a strange experiment of sorts in 1970. Consider the fact that it saw two films released involving Christopher Lee in the title role: Taste the Blood of Dracula was released in May while this film was released in November, complete with being released on the same day as The Horror of Frankenstein (1970). The film starts with, well, a sort-of resurrection sequence for Dracula, which involves a bat (on a string) throwing up blood onto him while he is around in a stone chamber totally closed off to all except, well, bats. The attempt by the villagers to strike upon the castle and take down Dracula only results in a burnt castle and the death of several people by vampire bats when the villagers arrive back to the churches to their loved ones. It takes about a third of the film (one that lasts 95 minutes) before one gets to hear Lee speak, which works out perhaps a bit better this time around when it comes to plot construction, or at least the idea of it. Lee was quite busy in the role of Dracula that year, since he also starred in Count Dracula (1970), the Jesus Franco production that somehow wasn't any better than the Hammer Dracula films, and Baker was busy with vampire films too with the release of The Vampire Lovers (1970). The script was written by Anthony Hinds, who actually was the son of William Hinds, the founder of Hammer Film Productions (it was Anthony who had suggested Hammer go after the screen rights to The Quartermass Experiment from the BBC). He had written for the previous four Dracula films (The Brides of Dracula, Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula Has Risen from the Grave and Taste, respectively)
The series was already quite over-the-top if you think about it, considering that one of them saw the vampire get taken down by running water (or having three films in a row where the lead male presence besides Lee plays a character named Paul), so the idea of him going around using a knife on someone and then sucking their blood is about on point. The film does dwell a bit on the gore when it comes to the opening (vampire bat ravaging, anyone?), which probably is there to make up for a story that is paler than the previous renditions. It is evident where Hammer would get the idea to try and revitalize the series with "A.D. 1972", that is for sure, and it starts with thinking to do anything other than try another weak lead to counter the title character. Lee had grown tired of the role even before the release of his final film as Dracula (he often stated that the scripts seemed as if Dracula was added in later), but at least one can detect where he tried his best to capture what he felt was defined by Bram Stoker in the original novel when it comes to (in his words) "aloof majesty, ferocity of dignity, and of somber mystery". In short, there are no bad performances when it comes to Lee as Dracula. The bar for the films with him may have had their highs and lows, but at least Lee looks the part. Waterman was apparently more known for tough-guy roles, which probably explains why the role doesn't really have any bite present when it comes to playing off the mysteries of what one has seen before from folks encountering a spooky place where the villagers play pretend. The only notable supporting member might be Troughton, if only because, well, a sniveling helper to Dracula played by someone familiar to viewers of a certain British TV show is worth a chuckle. The climax is more amusing in the execution rather than as a way to end things on a useful note, since it sees Dracula grab a metal beam that had been thrust on him only to see the beam get struck by lightning that results in him being on fire to writhe around before falling out of the castle. As a whole, it definitely isn't one of the better efforts by Hammer, seemingly satisfying just the bare minimum for what you would hope to have from them that makes for a mediocre time.
Now, as for the Frankenstein film that came with it...
Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment