Dracula jagt Mini-Mädchen

Pythonesque, outlandishly stylish in parts - criminally battered out in others - 'AD, 1972' is a hugely enjoyable film. It is an excellent party movie - both in terms of subject matter and as an accompaniment to much alcohol, although this role was perhaps the final nail in the coffin for any fondness Lee had for Dracula. One has only to see his response to George Lucas putting fangs on a Yoda doll on the set of 'Attack of the Clones' to gauge this. Christopher Lee has often said that 'the Wicker Man' was his best film. The British film cognoscenti laud that film because of its chronological signposting of the beginning-of-the-end of the British film industry. He made 'Dracula: AD 1972' at the same time and his mono-syllabic - almost no-syllabic - role is perhaps what he compared Lord Summerisle to.

It's flaws, however, are what makes the film so enjoyable. Here is the old-men-of-Hammers' idea of what youth culture was like in the 1970s. Loads of RSC twits pretending to be cockney - Ben Elton, Damon Albarn and Jamie Oliver must have studied this film intensely. Stephanie Beecham's character - to the squirming of female viewers and the anger of male audience members - dates the ugliest man in Christendom, here. Van Helsing should have killed him first then made up an excuse: "He was an . . . ugh . . . yes, that's right an ugh-monster!" 'The Stoneground' - a kind of 'Mungo Jerry meets the Doors at Kenny Lynch's House' - achieve celluloid immortality - though I can find none of the tracks found here in their (only?) eponymous album. It is true that, had the filmmakers made a cardboard standee of Lee in costume instead of including the actor no-one would have noticed. Lee does not so much "phone-in" his performance as be photographed without his knowledge and have that photograph put on the internet then beamed back in time. Peter Cushing is the bedrock of the movie. The maestro portrays Van Helsing with calm dignity and a conviction unworthy of the manure that is the script. The above could be taken as advice not to see the film - but don't avoid it, you'll have the time of your afterlife.

Modern horror movies love to place classic horror icons and characters in modern times and people love to hate modern horror movies for that! However, it really isn't something that's new, as this 1972 movie clearly demonstrates. It take the classic Hammer Dracula character and puts him into a 'modern' 1972 setting, no doubt also in an attempt to modernize and update the Dracula series, hoping this would boost the franchise again. It didn't really worked out though, since its one of the final Dracula movies from the Hammer studios but in all truth and honesty; I still quite liked it!

Lets face it, all of the older Dracula movies set in more classic settings were starting to get extremely repetitive. All of the movies were being more or less the same, with very little variety to them. And while in essence this movie is also really being the same as any other classic Dracula movie story-wise, it still manages to feel like a breath of fresh air, due to its difference in style and settings.

It definitely feels like a more modern movie, though of course in today's light, it still is a very outdated movie. It's really a product of its time, with some funky '70's clothing, music and type of characters.

You could complain about it that this movie doesn't have enough vampire action in it, since this is definitely true but in all honesty, the same can be said for a lot of Dracula movies, also those from the Hammer studios. Blame Christopher Lee for that, since he was the one who was done with the character pretty early on already but agreed to still appear in Dracula movies as the count, probably just because it was quick, good money for him. But he always made sure his role was being as limited as possible and also his dialog always needed to be cut down to a minimum. But how can you be mad at Christopher Lee for that? after all, he's still an awesome and very charismatic Dracula, in every movie in which he plays the character.

Also good news about this movie is that Peter Cushing returns in it, as professor Van Helsing. Or well, a decedent of him of course. It had been 12 years and 5 Dracula movies ago he starred opposite Christopher Lee. And he was truly missed in the 4 Dracula movies which that he didn't appeared in. Not just because he was a great actor but also really since he has just as much screen-presence and charisma as Lee and was capable of counterbalancing him. All of the Dracula movies without him basically lack a good and strong enough lead, that besides was being a memorable and likable enough character.

You could argue about it if it truly adds something that this movie got set in 1972, since Dracula himself doesn't even ever get outside I believe but it does bring some originality and more creativity to the series, while still maintaining a good and typical Hammer studios horror style to it.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

You really can't blame Hammer studios for trying to do something different with their long-running Dracula franchise by the early '70s. This film has its share of detractors and most of those slam it because it feels "dated" to them, or because the legendary Count seems oddly out of place amongst all those groovy "modern-day" hipsters, man. For me, the trouble with "Dracula A.D. 1972" has nothing to do with its welcome new setting -- after all, if we accept that Dracula is a supernatural being who can sustain himself throughout the ages, why wouldn't that also include his living amongst us during the late 20th century? -- but unfortunately, the problem is that very little is done to take full advantage of the circumstances.

The movie opens with a spectacular prologue set in the 1800's where a runaway horse-drawn carriage races through a shaded forest with two figures atop it, fighting hand-to-hand: Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) and the vampire king himself, Count Dracula (Christopher Lee). In the midst of their struggle, the wagon crashes into a tree and is demolished. But the wise vampire hunter manages to grab a broken cart wheel and thrusts its wooden spoke into Dracula's chest, killing his enemy and reducing him to ashes. Van Helsing himself lives just long enough to witness Dracula's decay before succumbing to his death. But no sooner has the world become better off, when a young disciple of the Count (Christopher Neame) arrives at the scene to secure Dracula's remains in a vial.

We then leap to London "today" (meaning 1972, that is) where the disciple, now referred to as "Johnny Alucard" (cute), heads a naive young group of thrill-seeking teens (or twenty-somethings). They've tried everything they can think of for kicks, like crashing high society parties unannounced where they can boogey to the mod sounds of the performing rock group Stoneground (who do two songs). Alucard's latest scheme is to involve his gang in a devilish black mass. Gathering the guys and gals together inside the ruins of an old church, Alucard performs a satanic ritual which resurrects Dracula once more, and this time one of the naive chicks who is first to fall victim to him is raven-haired Caroline Munro. But Alucard and Dracula are more interested in corrupting Jessica (Stephanie Beacham), the blonde member of their little circle, who happens to be the great-granddaughter of the original professor. She is currently living with her grandfather (again played by Cushing) who himself is the descendant of the first Van Helsing, as well as being skilled in the black arts. He is a great asset to Scotland Yard when the mysterious murders start piling up, though much of the dull stretches in the movie lie within tiresome scenes of Cushing meeting with police investigators, and it's usually a challenge for me to remain alert for them any time I watch this.

It's never a bad thing to see Cushing and Lee in another film together, and they do get to shine in an updated climax where Dracula even gets to roar classic lines straight out of Bram Stoker's novel. Lee looks great as the count and he's magnificently ruthless in the few treasured scenes he has. But it's a pity that the filmmakers opted to keep Dracula confined to his claustrophobic quarters at the dilapidated church; he is never scene venturing anywhere else, so one then wonders what was the point of going through all the trouble of setting the story in modern society! The "20th century face lift" worked much better in other horror films of this era like COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE (1970) and BLACULA(1972). Though there are some moments to be savored with A.D. '72, this is somewhat of a missed opportunity and arguably the nadir of Hammer's Dracula series. **1/2 out of ****

England's Hammer Studios did 9 Dracula or vampire films from 1958-1974:

1. Horror of Dracula (1958); 2. Brides of Dracula (1960); 3. Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966); 4. Dracula has Risen from the Grave (1968); 5. Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970); 6. Scars of Dracula (1970); 7. Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972); 8. The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973); and 9. The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974).

Christopher Lee plays the Count in all but "The Brides of Dracula" and "The Legend 7 Golden Vampires." Peter Cushing also stars in four entries as Van Helsing.

By the time of the seventh film the creative well was apparently running dry and Hammer decided to spice up the series by bringing the Count to present-day London (1972, of course), which was Hammer's response to other successful vampire films at the time taking place in the modern day, such as "The Night Stalker," "Blacula" and "Count Yorga." The story revolves around a group of hip counter-culture youths performing a black mass in an abandoned church for kicks (although the ringleader takes it serious) and they revive the blood-sucking prince of darkness. Havok ensues.

Peter Cushing appears as Van Helsing's descendant. Christopher Neame plays the nutjob who performs the black mass with utter relish. Also on hand are the stunning beauties Stephanie Beacham and Caroline Munro. Stephanie plays Van Helsing's daughter and Caroline has a small but significant role. There are a couple of other early-70s hippie babes as well.

The first half of the film borrows heavily from the previous "Taste the Blood of Dracula" in that the Count is resurrected in roughly the same manner, although "Taste" is more effective. Which isn't to say that "Dracula A.D. 1972" isn't a decent entry in the series, albeit bizarre. The main problem with the film is that the story doesn't seem to know what to do once Dracula is resurrected. For instance, Cushing's final battle with the Count is fairly lame for various reasons (I don't want to give anything away), not to mention Lee only appears for about 10 minute in the entire film, which is usual for the series, of course.

Another problem is the score. It screams "early 70s" in a bad way, but doesn't mesh with what is essentially a serious horror flick. Of course some would cite that as part of its charm. I said "serious horror flick, by the way, because this is not a goofy or campy flick despite the colorful hippie elements and lousy score.

What works best is that it's a great period piece. You'll get a groovy glimpse of England's counter-culture, including the hippie girls and a live performance by the band Stoneground (who didn't go anywhere beyond this movie, likely because their sound & style was already passe by 1972). So, the first half is fun and compelling, whereas the second half just sort of goes through the motions and peters out.

BOTTOM LINE: "Dracula A.D. 1972" is hard to rate because, despite the mediocre-ness of the story's second half, the film is a fun experience with numerous highlights. Hence, as a Dracula story I give it a C+, but for entertainment value I give it a solid B or B+.

The film runs 96 minutes and was shot in England.

GRADE: B-

An attempt to corner a new market by Hammer. Starts promisingly with references to London and a generation clash as the central characters disrupt a cheese and wine evening . Looked on by their horrified elders they cause mayhem with their new music and wacky clothing which now look all dated and laughable. The resurrection of Dracula is th most impressive part of the film and has been reused regularly in stills footage. The modern settings leave scriptwriters uncertain where to progress next and a desperate Van Helsing searching for his niece is wasted in poor lighting & lack of dialogue. Take the opportunity to enjoy 70s interior decor throughout much of the film. The finale is worth watching alone. Colour's a bit garish but seeing Cushing recite a piece of melancholic Latin is a pleasure we never saw enough of. Watch beginning and end, don't bother with the middle & start your own satanic cult from the black mass scenes. Sects have done that.