Taste the Blood of Dracula

This was the only Dracula/Lee movie that I saw on the huge theater screen and it was pretty cool. My mom would never take me to these things so I had my dad drop me and my friend off, then pick us up later. It was a double feature along with Trog. The theater was not packed, but it had been playing for at least a week. Now some kids are going to rate this lower because they've all seen much bloodier and scarier stuff. No kidding, really????? When this came out it was very good in terms of gore and horror.

My most memorable scene was when the hardened dust broke in half and Dracula's face filled the screen with those red eyes. I just purchased the DVD and it includes some restored footage of the brothel T&A and during each victim's death they look up at the standing figure of Dracula. The first victim's shovel-gashed face was restored on the DVD, the second victim's bloody face and the third victim too. This version was never released in the US. It would have been rated R, instead it was GP (before they called it PG).

I think it's bull for another commenter to say it's obvious that Dracula was never intended to be in this. No, what is obvious is that a certain commenter read some of these movie facts before claiming they "knew all along." Yeah, they were going to have Bates as Dracula, thank god that fell through. Lee was talked into it again. They had to rewrite it to insert Dracula in there, and his presence was awesome though some of his lines were bad. Hmmm, Dracula can count to 3. I'll give this one 7 stars. The DVD quality is spectacular.

Taste the Blood of Dracula is neither the best(Horror of Dracula) or worst(Satanic Rites of Dracula from what I recall, the film needs a re-watch though) of the Hammer Dracula series, for me it's somewhere in the middle as a flawed but very enjoyable film.

One of Taste the Blood of Dracula's biggest flaws is the ending, which is one of the series' most unimaginative and is far too protracted and drawn out, Dracula's demise is also too easy and the silliest of his demises in the series. The script is flat and far too talky, some of the talk not adding much, while Dracula's few lines of dialogue are rather ludicrous. While not as bad as in the films following it, the pacing in the first half is on the pedestrian side too.

However, the photography is incredibly stylish with lots of vibrant and creepy colour and use of camera that adds to the atmosphere. The sets and period detail are very evocative and splendidly Gothic, while the effects are decent(thankfully no laughably fake bats like there were in Scars of Dracula). The music thunders thrillingly, has a lot of personality, is orchestrated beautifully and cleverly and is deliciously spooky. It is a great score on its own and adds a lot to the film. Not all of the story works, but there are some cool death scenes, some chilling violence, gore that doesn't get too gratuitous and once the film does pick up there is a good deal of suspense and a real sense of horror and dread, something that Hammer excels in better than most horror films(before, during and now).

Taste the Blood of Dracula boasts some fine direction from Peter Sasdy, and as long as one doesn't expect any development the characters at least serve a point to the story and engage. The acting is good, with Ralph Bates making the most of his deliciously hammy and sinister character, Geoffrey Keen being appropriately stiff and shady and Linda Hayden is alluring and spunky. Anthony Higgins is very likable too, not the most well-developed of characters but one of the better-acted hero characters in the Hammer Dracula series. Christopher Lee does not have very much screen time and has to work with lines that are too few and pretty bad, meaning that he doesn't have a lot to do, but the suave and incredibly intimidating presence that he brings to Dracula really captivates so he is still memorable.

All in all, an enjoyable entry in the Hammer Dracula series, without being one of the series' best or worst. 7/10 Bethany Cox

It's funny how I really wasn't into this movie at first but still ended up really liking it!

Thing that makes this movie a bit unusual and different is that it's being a part of the Hammer studios Dracula series but it really doesn't feel or look like a Hammer movie at all! Director Peter Sasdy did an handful of movies for the Hammer studios but only in its later years and he never impressed with any. He obviously wasn't that accustomed to its approach and style of film-making, or perhaps he simply really preferred to do his own thing. But anyway, if you're really into Hammer films, just prepare yourself for something totally different. You might end up disliking it at first, just as I did but don't give up on it! It's really a worthwhile and original enough little horror movie. I can also honestly say that this was the best movie I had seen, that got directed by Peter Sasdy.

The movie and story all first starts out as something very simplistic and formulaic but as the movie goes along, you actually start to realize how great its premise is. It has a premise that really adds to the movie its tension and for once isn't all about Dracula and the horror that he does. It might very well be true that this movie would have a better reputation if it didn't featured the character of Dracula in it, since this movie really doesn't feel like a typical Dracula movie at all and its story and atmosphere perhaps called for something totally different, outside of the Dracula universe.

And as often is the case with these late Hammer Dracula movies, Dracula himself is hardly in it at all. It was because Christopher Lee got fed up with the role and was also afraid he was going to get typecast because of it, for the rest of his life. He still needed a paycheck, so he kept on playing the character for a couple of years, under the condition that his role got limited down and in some cases he doesn't even have any lines. In this movie he does still speak however and once more shows why he was such a great and charismatic Dracula at the time.

It's the more slower sort of horror movie, which doesn't really work out that great for the movie at first but about halfway through it picks up some more pace and things start to get far more interesting and original. It's then that the movie suddenly starts to take form and makes its intension clear. It also provides the movie with some really solid horror moments and the movie has a very constant horror like atmosphere to it as well, that really adds to the tension and mystery of the overall movie.

Once you start to realize that this isn't being your average formulaic and simplistic Dracula production, the movie becomes surprisingly good, effective and original to watch!

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

1969's "Taste the Blood of Dracula" was intended to introduce Ralph Bates as the vampire's disciple Lord Courtley, with Christopher Lee occupied in Spain finishing Jesus Franco's "Count Dracula." Having come as close as possible to playing the character as conceived by Bram Stoker, he was naturally reluctant to essay his 4th performance in the role for an increasingly penny pinching Hammer Films, only relenting under pressure for American financing from Warner Brothers. The previous Freddie Francis outing, "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave," was the best of all the sequels, allowing plenty of hair raising moments for Lee to assert Dracula's power, in particular the spectacular and controversial act of removing a stake from his own heart because the hero is an atheist without spiritual beliefs. Here, even after a hasty rewrite by usual screenwriter Anthony Hinds (as John Elder), he is reduced to mere cameo status with truly no need to speak any lines at all, quite a comedown so far as his mere presence is concerned. A traveling salesman (Roy Kinnear) happens to see the Count perish on the giant cross from the previous film's gory climax, stealing the vampire's signet ring, cloak, clasp, and a sample of his blood before returning to his London shop, where Lord Courtley has found three suckers eager for more impressive kicks than a drug induced evening at the local brothel. Willingly paying an astronomical price for Dracula's possessions ("may the devil take good care of you"), Courtley sets everything up in a dilapidated church intending that all four of them ingest the blood of Dracula to ensure the master's revival, only for the others to pass up the gruesome sight and Courtley imbibing himself. Falling to the floor in agony, he's beaten and left for dead, slowly transforming into Dracula (finally arriving at the 44 minute mark), who curiously decides that the trio must die for what happened to his servant, an extremely petty and simple minded motive for the supposed lord of the undead, despite being present in an obviously decadent Victorian London. So wicked are the so called killers that they present themselves to high society as pillars of the community doing charity work on the side, their children becoming the instruments of their own demise. Linda Hayden as Alice makes a strong impression in just her second film role, the daughter of Geoffrey Keen's loathsome Hargood, a knowing smile as she wields a deadly spade against him to lethal effect, followed by Isla Blair as Lucy, daughter of Peter Sallis' Paxton, the first time that Lee actually bites the throat of a victim on screen (Paxton is the one getting staked for a change). John Carson's Secker is stabbed to death by his son, vampirized by Lucy mere moments before, but not before leaving a note for Anthony Corlan's Paul Paxton, informing him how to gain knowledge to destroy Dracula, later finding the discarded corpse of sister Lucy before engaging in final battle for sweetheart Alice's soul. Again, Hinds is able to build a nice preamble but everything falls apart once Dracula sets out to corrupt the children to atone for the sins of the fathers, apparently still good enough to require another ruined church for a similar ritual in "Dracula A. D. 1972." Many critics praise this entry for its excellent production values and fine cast, but without a strong Dracula to propel events Lee is left with top billing and a meager bit part; though most decry the follow up "Scars of Dracula" as the worst of the Gothic sequels at least there the actor enjoys his largest role in any Hammer entry, happily recreating some of the passages in Stoker's novel.

This movie begins essentially where its predecessor "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave" left off with Dracula (Christopher Lee) having been run through with a large crucifix and in the process of dying. It's at this time that a man named "Weller" (Roy Kinnear) comes along and takes what remains of a totally decomposed body--in particular his clothes and a vial of his blood. As it so happens, three men interested in adventure come upon a man named "Lord Courtney" (Ralph Bates) who is involved in black magic and Satanism. Intrigued at the prospect of a new diversion, they have supper with him and it is at this time that he convinces them to buy the relics from Weller with the secret intention of resurrecting "the Prince of Darkness". Unfortunately, something goes horribly wrong during this ritual and the three men kill Lord Courtney out of fear and then run off. Unknown to them, the evil forces at work had not yet completed and soon the soul of the vampire inhabits Lord Courtney's body and subsequently reconstitutes itself into Dracula's old image-and he vows vengeance upon those who killed his loyal servant. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film was every bit as good as its predecessor mainly because of the dark, gloomy atmosphere which dominated every scene. Of course, that shouldn't be too surprising because that is what most Hammer films are known for in the first place. In any case, this is a pretty solid vampire film and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.