timemayer

I prefer this movie to it's predecessor, because it is campy, nostalgic and has favorite actors like Rosalind Russell, Stella Stevens and Susan Saint James. I also went to parochial school in the seventies but enjoy the sixties references. Yes, this movie is a sequel, but evaluate it on it's own merits. I love the entire charming soundtrack by Lalo Schifrin and the title song lyrics and vocals by Boyce & Hart but am very disappointed that it is not available. I actually first saw it as a young adult in my church's school auditorium and found it highly amusing. It doesn't shock, create belly-laughs or extended philosophical pondering and if you are looking for those things, then choose another movie. One reviewer actually said that this plays like a "low-drawer Disney movie", to which I say absolutely not. The current Disney television shows and movies for kids often pander with extremely corny overacting, silly overused slang and idiotic dialogue. This movie does not take itself too seriously. It has dramatic moments but is NOT Shakespeare, SO MELLOW-OUT, YOU SQUARES! IT IS, HOWEVER, A LOT OF INNOCENT FUN.

I thought Lon Chaney, Jr. was a terrible casting choice. He was hardly menacing with a tremendously dull character and with no sophistication. Dracula is supposed to be from Transylvania but he sounded like he was from the mid-western U.S. He even looked dull, not like a villain or even a leading man. The special effects were top notch for the time period and the sets were wonderfully moody and mysterious. The male costuming was good but the female costuming was excellent with flowing dresses. Actually, I am surprised that the censors allowed the very sensual dresses. The whole "Alucard" idea was slightly interesting but they should have stuck with the classic story. The cinematography for indoor scenes was flat but the outside scenes were the most attractive.

The movie was not scary but was moderately interesting.