This is the question one must ask himself while watching this... how can I put it? Infamous? Dull? Stupid? Below the waist? Anyway, tremendously trashy movie.
I don't know what went on in both Boris Szulzinger (director, also writer) or in Pierre Sterckx and Marc-Henri Wajnberg (also writers), when they decided to put this project in motion.
Probably, since this was made a few years later than "The Rocky Horror Picture Show", they must have thought that another such attempt would be worthwhile, but seeing that the former was a kind of a Musical Fantasy movie, and not indeed just yet another comedy, one must ask on what basis they started doing it.
Just four years earlier "Dracula and Son", starring the otherwise great Christopher Lee, and even six years earlier "Old Dracula", starring David Niven bombed totally at the box office and although in the meanwhile they might have joined the ranks of other so called "cult movies" (only heaven knows why), "Mama Dracula" doesn't seem to be part of them.
In fact I just found it due to my music score research, which is the only worthy thing in it, just because it was composed by none other than Roy Budd.
And since Roy Budd had been known to have composed some of the best scores for movies like "Get Carter", "The Black Windmill", "The Wild Geese I & II" and indeed for "Who Dares Wins" (Aka "The Final Option"), I assumed that even this effort was made for a worthy film.
Alas, how wrong I was.
And besides, there was already a much better depiction of the source material based on Countess Elizabeth Bathory made in 1971 by none other than Hammer Films which starred Ingrid Pitt in the main role as "Countess Dracula". Although that was indeed a horror movie.
So, again, why had they to waste money in something like this?
My answer to my preceding question on why Louise Fletcher did accept the role has only two possibilities: one, she needed the money; two. She was handed a better script to start with, only to be embroiled and trapped under contract, while the authors did shamelessly re-write it during filming.
Something that even happened to great actors such as Malcolm McDowell and Peter O'Toole while working on the infamous "Caligula" movie.
In any case, story or no story logic, this project had no real bearing nor did it have a real final goal. It was just made for the fun(?) of it.
Probably just to have the director's and writer's names written on the billboards in the hope of notoriety and fame.
And Louise Fletcher, in her usual professional way does what she was supposed to do: act in it, but one can easily see that she was only doing it by the numbers, with no real enthusiasm.
It is only for her presence in it that I gave it an uplifting three stars, because were it just for the movie alone, I wouldn't even have considered to pick one to start with, that bad of an experience (at least for yours truly) it was.
Instead of having been entertained, I was utterly embarrassed for all the performers in it, who I believe and hope, have finally found more worthy projects to work on since then.
So, what is my final judgment on "Mama Dracula"?
Simply put? Forget it, it does not exist, but should you want to be educated on how not to ever film something like this, this would probably be one of the finest examples among others.
And would I recommend it? Are you kidding me?
Why experience something so abysmally idiotic and painful?
