Supposedly the film took inspiration from an actual media case involving supposed vampires that occurred in London in the late 1960s that involved graveyard desecration and supposed mysterious figures being sighted (which naturally involved "vampire hunters" that occurred in Highgate Cemetery. Sure, "vampire hunters" and figures seen in the dark near the graves seem like an apt inspiration when it comes to Dracula, but it doesn't do any favors in the eyeroll of the skeptic with horror, that much is true (one detail of the Highgate sensation involved hunters that were also supposed to have a "magic duel" with each other, I kid you not). The film was written by Don Houghton, who you might recognize from his work on television programs such as Doctor Who (which he wrote two serials from 1970-71), and he would also write the following two films of the Dracula series. Again, the continuity is up to the viewer to pick and poke with, since there are only occasionally dates referred to in these films anyway (the original Dracula was apparently set in 1885, while this film depicts a final fight between Van Helsing and Dracula in 1872, and if you go by Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968, #860), that was set in the early 20th century - oh, and Van Helsing's first name in the original was- never mind, I give up). So yes, the main setting is indeed with swinging hippies in 1972 (i.e. padding) to wash away a charming little start with Cushing and Lee before Cushing is back again at minute 20 (Lee comes back 15 minutes after that). Oh, right, I forgot, there's a bunch of swinging 70s characters, which I guess is supposed to be more fresh than having the usual 19th century British folks, no doubt inspired by the success of earlier 70s vampire films like Count Yorga, Vampire (1970). Is there any more semblance of "plot" than before? Nope, and it only goes to show that just having Lee and Cushing back can't override the sense of boredom that comes from hippies and a Dracula that only comes around to lurk a few feet, never really experiencing the swinging locale besides having people being brought in to scream. Jeez, the blood being poured into the chalice (with ashes from 1872) can't even bring the fright level up. All that is happening is padding but with "hip" stuff, and Lee and Cushing literally only show up together again with five minutes left of a 96 minute feature. They are both at their usual level of curiosity, but they clearly have had better scripts to go along with (after all, they starred in a far better film with Horror Express the same year as this one). Beacham is okay in trying to draw new blood on the catacombs of familiarity, which works to a point in some tension while being quite bland in other respects. Neame is quite silly here, a laughable stooge of dark arts that is at his most bewildering in the fight between him and Cushing - fear the might that comes from a rising sun and "moveable mirrors" to go with water to end it all - oh the horror (there is even a scene that does the whole Alucard = Dracula bit...older fans might recognize this as a familiar bit from Son of Dracula (1943), of all things). At least Munro gets to have a scream scene to note. As a whole, it's a bland movie, reminding me of the "How do you do, fellow kids?" meme that shows the age of the Hammer films even with attempts to move from Victorian era making to 1970s stuff that shows plaque on the fangs of Dracula more than anything. To be fair, there are supporters of the film, with Tim Burton even once calling it one of his favorite films. If one finds something to like or found it to be one of the blocks that built scares as a kid, all power to you. It's a jumbled mess, but it is likely one you could find some amusement with just along the line of the other Dracula films from Hammer - for better or worse.
Next Time: Day of the Dead.
Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.
.png)
