Blacula

When you consider the fact that this movie was saddled with a low budget, a title that--while certainly apropos--is essentially a punch line, and all the constraints that low budget-dom entail... this is a pretty good movie. William Marshall is very good (the 'this will be your tomb' line is delivered as convincinly as any Chris Lee utterance) and was certainly worthy of the role of Bl(Dr)acula. The era of the film provides its own fun. 7/10. The sequel is better on all counts: more scary, campy, funny, visually interesting and sexy.

I saw Blacula in the theatre when I was 5 or 6 years old. It scared the bejeesus out of me!!! I had nightmares for weeks, and my mother was very angry at my cousins for taking me to see it. I wasn't allowed to watch a horror flick again until I was old enough to go on my own and buy my own ticket (and even then I stayed away for a while. . . the next one I saw was Nightmare on Elm Street when I was in highschool!!!).

Anyway, I saw the movie for the second time two nights ago, 29 years later.. . and it was not as scary as I remembered. However, I can see how my young mind was terrified at the time. AND, I can see how my teenaged cousins loved it so much. In 1972, this movie was at the early end of the blaxploitation era, and besides the fact that the main character was a bloodsucker, the characters were generally positive (i.e. no pimpin' drug-dealin' gangstas) You'll be hard pressed to find another early seventies black movie that can say that!

I think, for the time, it was a pretty good low budget horror movie. They deserve their own category, you know.

BLACULA has always been a favorite flick of mine. Two of my biggest intertests within pop culture are the "blaxploitation" film era and gothic subculture. BLACULA makes a perfect melding of these two genres. I also love the fact that it's unique to all other "blaxploitation" movies in the sense that it has a story with true backbone, and the film's main player, William Marshall, gets so into the role he plays and isn't just another Afro-American leading man that talks the lingo and prances around in a fur. He seems well-dignified and intelligent. I thoroughly enjoy this movie and recommend it highly.

And where the hell is the DVD??!!?

It seems that a lot of people dislike this film due to weak contextual restraints. Superficical gripes towards the actors' fashions or the homosexual lampooning in the film are myopic at best. This film came out in 1972- before Halloween, before Star Wars, and before the postmodern scare irony of the Scream franchise. It also seems that people do not take into account that this film is from the Black filmic canon, which is important to note when comparing it to other horror films.

Blacula was an early entry into the non-action field of 70's Black film. Forays in different directions were rare and notable entries few and far between. However, in the Black horror subgenre, Blacula is probably the most notable. It's a straight up vampire story with some well-conceived twists. The intro depiction of Mamuwalde as an African prince contesting slavery makes for a solid grounding and entry into the modern day. And then it's clear that AIP spent more than usual to grace this film just by the opening credits. The outstanding montage, with a considerable Saul Bass influence, are striking and instantly memorable. So too is the score, provided by Barry White collaborator Gene Page and his brother. The Hues Corporation contribute what could be one of their best songs, "There He Is Again", alongside 2 others. The act even sings them live in the movie to the characters ala "Superfly".

The superb acting and sturdy plot cannot be glossed over. The classically trained William Marshall proves a genteel, suave yet emotional main character. Vonetta McGee is graceful as the beauty easily swayed into Mamuwalde's charms. And staple actor Thalamus Rasulala's strength and authority are in full impact here as the skeptical doctor on the case. The plot might not break too many horror conventions, but it doesn't have to- who would have imagined a Black vampire story in 1962, just 10 years earlier? The love theme in the story provides excellent character development, something that many genre screenwriters skimp on.

A great film for the 70's and still a worthwhile viewing. Avoid the sequel, where Pam Grier is the only attraction.

I didn't see Blacula until 2006, 34 years after it was made, and I found it very entertaining. The lead actor, William Marshall, is really something special and gives the role some authenticity. So if you've made it this far without seeing Blacula, I would recommend it even more.

Blacula is portrayed as a somewhat sympathetic character, which I like. Blacula was an African prince in his previous, non-vampire life, who unfortunately travels to Transylvania. There, he attempts to win support from Count Dracula to end the international slave trade. Dracula is not exactly helpful, needless to say.

William Marshall is well-cast as a vampire. Charming and debonair one moment, he can turn nasty pretty fast. Marshall is a good actor whose performance here raises what could have been mediocre schlock horror into a pretty good movie.

A must-see for horror fans and recommended for just about everybody else too. 7/10