Blood of Dracula's Castle

Blood of Dracula's Castle (1969)

** (out of 4)

Let me start off by saying the horror dork inside of me almost shed a tear when I received this screener and realized that this Al Adamson film was included. Back when I was around ten or so I had the pleasure of my dad buying me Adamson's Blood of Ghastly Horror and Dracula vs. Frankenstein, both which lived up to their reputation of being among the worst films ever made. However, they fell into that "so bad they're good" category so I set out to locate this flick. After five years of searching I finally found a copy at a mom and pop store and they took pity on me and gave me the tape for free. Went on, put it in the VCR, the film started and smoke came from my VCR, which was eating my tape. My young heart was broken but I kept on until nearly ten years later when the postman dropped this disc off at my house.

Okay, enough dork talk and on to the movie….

A young couple inherits an old castle and to their shock they soon learn that Count Dracula and his wife are living there. With the assistance of a hunchback and caretaker (John Carradine), the Count and his wife keep the basement full of women so that the blood supply is never low. The young couple wants them out of the castle but Dracula will do whatever it takes to remain there even if it means making the new couple partners.

After a while I soon realized that Blood of Dracula's Castle is to Al Adamson what Jail Bait was to Ed Wood and that is the director's best made film, which means we aren't going to get as many laughs that we might expect. I was also disappointed to see John Carradine wasn't making a return to Dracula but even with that the film is campy enough to enjoy on many levels but just don't expect the goodness of say Dracula vs. Frankenstein.

The biggest flaw with the film is that Dracula and his wife just aren't very interesting and they're overshadowed by Carradine, the hunchback assistant and the werewolf, who never actually transforms. Perhaps Adamson was wanting to make a straight and serious film and while doing that, this one here comes off a bit boring and never reaches its potential of becoming an outrageously funny film. The silly music score and wooden acting brings some charm and minor laughs as done Carradine who chews up the scenery like he always does. But again, what in the hell was Adamson thinking not using the great as Dracula? It's also interesting to note that the cinematographer was Laszlo Kovacs who would later go on to do Easy Rider, Targets, Paper Moon, Shampoo and more recently doing a couple Sandra Bullock films.

Dracula isn't going by "Dracula" these days, and his castle isn't really his, it's rented, and it isn't really a castle, but just resembles one. And while there is blood, remarkably Dracula is now so leisure-class that he has servants extract blood with needles from his victims and serve it to him (and his wife) in wine glasses.

A young photographer and his model fiancé take some photos at Marineland (are walruses and seals sexy?). He inherits a "castle" from a 108-year-old relative. They decide they'll live and work out of the castle without having seen it, and that they'll have to evict the old couple who'd been renting it.

Meanwhile, at the castle, mute hunchbacked servant Mango (!?) and genteel butler (and moon god Luna cultist) George are acquiring female "guests" to chain in the basement to keep a ready supply for their vampire bosses. The vampires realize they'll have to get the young couple to let them stay in the castle one way or another.

Also showing up is the vampires' friend Johnny, a homicidal maniac. Just on his way to the castle, he kills four people, and that's when he's on his best behavior! Repeatedly, it is said that he's worse when there's a full moon. He's not a werewolf, though.

It's a pretty silly movie, but it's not awful.

A stinky, horrible, ghastly piece of cheese! (To quote the gnome statue in those television commercials for an intenet travel site.) Now that this horror is available for cheap-o prices, I would recommend it for bad film fans. Bad acting, cheap sets and leaden pacing abound. John Carradine is always fun to watch, no matter how bad the movie he is in, and he did many, many stinkers of Z-grade budgets. Probably my favorite part is the gratuitous opening scene which shows nice footage of Marineland in Los Angeles (Rancho Palos Verdes, I believe) closed and torn down decades ago. There was also some nice cinematography; I noted the scene where the robed, torch-bearing figures trudge across the beach in the moonlight. Nice image.

This film had exteriors shot mainly at Scotty's Castle (I think) in Death Valley, hundreds of miles from the ocean. But, through the magic of editing, it appears to be about a mile from the beach!

This movie is part of the Horrible Horrors Volume 2 Box Set from Rhino, eight bad horror movies for only $25 retail (about $18 street!)! Worth the freight for fans of cheesy, crusty, musty, dusty, horror flicks.

Yet another shlockfest on good ole Millcreek's 200 drive in cult cinema box set.

What is there to say. Mr and Mrs. Dracula kidnap young ladies for their blood. With the help on a butler, a psychopath and friendly old Mango.

Enter a photographer and his fiancé model who inherit the castle in which the vampires live.

Not much to get excited about here. The song at the beginning is catchy and it is well made but that is about all.

I didn't regret watching it.

Anyone looking for a fittingly horrendous Al Adamson film, look no further. While this film is not the usual paste-up job that Adamson specialized in, BLOOD OF DRACULA'S CASTLE is pure bad cinema, which is Adamson's true field.

D'Arcy and Raymond play Mr. and Mrs. Dracula, looking stiff and embarrassed (who can blame them?) The Draculas feed on the blood of the young women they have chained in their dungeon (including Adamson regular Vicki Volante). Carradine plays the Dracula's butler, a wasted opportunity for this horror screen legend to do his Dracula bit (get the pun?) A psycho shows up at the castle, and a stupid couple stay there.

BLOOD is boring, with only a few laughs produced from the bad acting and flimsy-looking props. Adamson made more hilarious films than this (like DRACULA VS FRANKENSTEIN), and it was unintentional (of course). Adamson, however, deserves the credit to having gotten anything on film for the tight budgets he was given.

Still, BLOOD is bad, and more mediocre than entertaining.