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.

Movie Night: Thunderbird 6.

Review #512: Thunderbird 6.

Cast
Peter Dyneley (Jeff Tracy), Sylvia Anderson (Lady Penelope Creighton-Ward), Shane Rimmer (Scott Tracy), Jeremy Wilkin (Virgil Tracy / Hogarth), Matt Zimmerman (Alan Tracy / Carter), David Graham (Gordon Tracy / Brains / Aloysius Parker), John Carson (Captain Foster), Keith Alexander (John Tracy / Narrator), Gary Files (The Hood / Steward Lane), Christine Finn (Tin-Tin), and Geoffrey Keen (James Glenn) Directed by David Lane.

Review
I knew nothing about how "Supermarionation" looked on screen until this film. Supermarionation is (apparently) a filming process that combines scale models and special effects with marionette puppet characters, which is what the series Thunderbirds (and a few other series) used, created by Gerry and Sylvia Anderson. They both produced and wrote the film, which is a sequel to Thunderbirds Are Go (both films being commercial failures with mixed reception). Now I'm going to be a bit short with these puppets and outright say this film just isn't that interesting to watch. While I admire the Andersons' attempt to make these dummies look less ridiculous, the film that is built around them is just mediocre in plot, short on excitement (The Thunderbird 6...is an old bi-plane. I know it makes some sense to have a link to the past in the apparent future, but this still counts as a cop out.), and just not much fun, unless you count making fun of the big eyed, big headed little puppets. The voice acting is fine (not so wooden, if you will), though had I known anything about the characters before watching this, I probably wouldn't- Scratch that, I'd still be making fun of Captain Foster, or as I like to call him, Evil Man With A Moustache, who joins Ed Rooney, Ming the Merciless and White Goodman in the Evil Men With A Moustache Club, or EMWMC for short. I doubt that kids will spring much interest into the film, and while it does finally show some life at the end, for others its too little, too late. It may be okay for some, but it's just a show of boredom for me. Not sure if it was worth the $1.86 I spent to buy this movie though.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Octopussy.

Review #360: Octopussy.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Maud Adams (Octopussy), Louis Jourdan (Kamal Khan), Steven Berkoff (General Orlov), Kabir Bedi (Gobinda), Kristina Wayborn (Magda), Vijay Amritraj (Vijay), David Meyer (Mischka), Anthony Meyer (Grischka), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Robert Brown (M), Geoffrey Keen (Fredrick Gray), Walter Gotell (General Gogol), Douglas Wilmer (Jim Fanning), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights, #290 - Licence to Kill, #296 - A View to a Kill, #358 - For Your Eyes Only)

Review
This was the 13th James Bond film, and Roger Moore's 6th overall. This is the last review of Roger Moore as James Bond, and his era (of 12 years) had its good films (The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only), its strangeness (Live and Let Die, Moonraker, A View to a Kill), and... well...(The Man with the Golden Gun)...yeah. But is this any good? Well...Let's get to the point. Moore does a fine job as usual, nothing really to pick at for acting per say. Maud Adams is our lady in the Bond franchise...again. She was in TMWTGG, a secondary leading lady, now she is the main lead. And she is okay, not really a great leading lady, but take her acting for what it's worth. Jourdan plays our...villain. He's kinda forgettable and his henchmen is sadly forgettable. The only memorable guy with a weapon is...the guy with a saw yo-yo. Seriously. Llewelyn gets a slightly bigger role and he is enjoyable, like usual. Robert Brown as the new M is alright, not as well as Bernard Lee, but still alright. He would be M for the next three films. The rest of the cast (Keen, Gotell, and Maxwell) do good as always. Of course the film seems like a good film, and it does have its moments, but it all bogs down due to a flaw: the plot. Maybe it's just me, but I really wonder what the plot was about exactly, something about smuggling, or about...Bond briefly as a clown? Yeah, it's a bit weird. Is it odd? Yes. Does it have moments of watchability? Sure. Is it that bad? Not really. It is alright, but take it for what's it worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: For Your Eyes Only.

Review #358: For Your Eyes Only.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Carole Bouquet (Melina Havelock), Julian Glover (Aristotle Kristatos), Chaim Topol (Milos Columbo), Lynn-Holly Johnson (Bibi Dahl), Michael Gothard (Emile Locque), Cassandra Harris (Lisl von Schlaf), John Wyman (Erich Kriegler), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Jill Bennett (Jacoba Brink), Jack Hedley (Timothy Havelock), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), Geoffrey Keen (Fredrick Gray), James Villiers (Bill Tanner), John Moreno (Luigi Ferrara), Walter Gotell (General Gogol), and Robert Rietti (Blofeld) Directed by John Glen (#281 - The Living Daylights, #290 - Licence to Kill, and #296 - A View to a Kill)

Review
This is the 12th Bond film and the fifth with Roger Moore. While Moonraker was indeed a success, the next film intended to be more serious, more down to earth. Does it work is the main question. And...it sort of works. Moore even at 52 still does a pretty good job. He still has his quips and an odd charm that only Moore can pull off as Bond. The leading lady is Carole Bouquet, and she does an alright job, not great but not bad. Then there's our villain, played by Julian Glover. I do admire the approach the writers went with for the character (which I won't spoil), but overall he isn't really villainous enough. I feel he doesn't really steal the show or even try to eliminate Bond like some would do (which is likely the point, considering some of the previous adversaries Bond has faced - Jaws being an easy example). Even dropping him into a pool of sharks would be better than "dragging him" in the water. Glover's scheme is not entirely bad though. The rest of the cast is alright, Chaim Topol (last seen in #215 - Flash Gordon) is good, and cast regulars like Desmond Llewelyn and Lois Maxwell do their usual best. It might be useful to note that Bernard Lee (and M) are absent from this film, but that is due to Lee dying before this film went into production, and M was left absent out of respect. The film doesn't exactly sputter, it kinda chugs and chugs a bit slowly to the finish line, where something is missing, it feels like it needed something unknown to make this a bit better, though it still is a fine experience; obviously this is an improvement over Moonraker. It has its moments (such as the scene at the beginning with Blofeld which sadly is better than the Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever), and director John Glen shows why he would direct the next four films of the franchise, he has good action scenes and it works when it needs to. Take it for when it works.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Moonraker.

Review #338: Moonraker.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Lois Chiles (Holly Goodhead), Michael Lonsdale (Hugo Drax), Richard Kiel (Jaws), Corinne Cléry (Corinne Dufour), Bernard Lee (M), Toshiro Suga (Chang), Geoffrey Keen (Frederick Gray), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Blanche Ravalec (Dolly) Directed by Lewis Gilbert (#292 - The Spy Who Loved Me)

Review:
Greetings, fellow reader who decided to click the link from the review of Kingsman: The Secret Service. Enjoy this (slightly fixed) review from 2013.

For Your-Woah, sorry, wrong film for a second. Moonraker is its own film in the Bond franchise, a different sort for only one reason, the obvious reason. James Bond goes to space. Actually, he doesn't get to it until the last half of the film. Moonraker comes off the heels of Star Wars (#113), and it shows. This was moved up to follow the last film instead of the planned For Your Eyes Only with the same director...and essentially the same plot. However they have different ways of going by it (Drax being the better villain over...Stromberg), with different sorts of actions...and Jaws. He was intimidating in the last film...and he kinda is in the film as well. I don't know, maybe its because the film shows his facial expressions too much. That and what he does at the end (namely by betraying the villain). Roger Moore does a fine job, delivering his wry lines as best as he can. Chiles does good too, not a downgrade from the last leading lady. Lonsdale actually exceeded my expectations (namely by not looking ridiculous with that beard and outfit), delivering his lines coldly, and skillfully. The rest of the cast do a fine job, including Bernard Lee in his last time portraying M, doing so with the class you would expect from him. The elements that work for the film work good, but when the elements don't...they really don't work great. Especially the sometimes silly nature that the film has (including an inflatable gondola), but the scenes in space...do work well, actually. Even after 34 years since its release, the effects still manage to look respectable. While it does have its odd moments, it is worthy enough to at least be watched. It's not horrible, and it does have some enjoyment. It may represent the pinnacle of silliness in the franchise, but hey, take it for what its worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Spy Who Loved Me.

Review #292: The Spy Who Loved Me.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Barbara Bach (Anya Amasova), Curd Jürgens (Karl Stromberg), Richard Kiel (Jaws), Caroline Munro (Naomi), Walter Gotell (General Gogol), Bernard Lee (M), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), and Geoffrey Keen (Fredrick Gray) Directed by Lewis Gilbert.

Review
Three years after the not so great success of The Man with the Golden Gun (#289), a new film would be released (coincidentally on an anniversary year as 1977 was the 15th Anniversary of James Bond's first film, Dr. No - #150), but is it any better? Does Moore have more substance? Yea. Pretty much. What I like about this film is that the absurdities aren't as highlighted as in other films. The action works well that is even more helped by Jaws (played by Richard Kiel), a henchman of Stromberg with metal teeth. (One scene that seals is for me is when he actually manages to survive an encounter with a shark with his teeth) One thing I'll mention is the submarine car, which adds to the inventiveness of the story, even if it's there for one scene. The rest of the cast is excellent, especially Bach and Jurgens. Moore does an excellent job, more improved from the last one and more (or less) a substantial Bond.  This is one of the better Bonds, and possibly the best Moore film as James Bond. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.