Wie schmeckt das Blut von Dracula?

A trio of seemingly respectable, well-to-do Victorian gentlemen (played by Geoffrey Keen, Jonathen Secker, and Peter 'more cheese, Gromit?' Sallis) form a secret club in order to experience the wildest thrills that life has to offer. However, their limited imaginations mean that they soon become bored, and so they decide to take their lead from disgraced aristocrat and practising Satanist Lord Courtley (a marvellously slimy Ralph Bates), who suggests that they attempt a ritual to bring the infamous Count Dracula back to life.

When the three men panic during the ceremony, and beat Courtley to death, they flee the scene, not realising that Count Dracula (Christopher Lee) has indeed returned from the dead, and now seeks retribution for the killing of his loyal acolyte.

Although Hammer's Dracula movies rarely strayed far from their well-worn formula—Dracula lives; Dracula kills; Dracula dies—their lush Gothic atmosphere, fine ensemble casts, and sumptuous cinematography usually meant that, even when the script was somewhat lacking, there was still plenty to enjoy. Such is the case with Taste The Blood Of Dracula, which features a so-so story and a surprisingly unremarkable turn from Lee (who is forced to deliver some particularly dodgy dialogue), but manages to keep fans entertained with some gloriously camp performances from the rest of the cast, some fine direction from Peter Sasdy, and loads of Hammer's trademark Gothic trappings.

Plus, this entry in the series also stars the gorgeous Linda Hayden—one of my favourite actresses from the late 60s/70s—whose presence makes it a must-see as far as I am concerned. Her transformation from wide eyed innocent to slutty vamp slave (with cleavage on display, naturally) is reason enough to seek this one out!

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.

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/

Three wealthy gentlemen go out during one night of the month for pleasure seeking (supposedly for charity the wives think) and are becoming incredibly bored in what they do in that time, as they think that they've done everything. That's until they meet Lord Courtley (Ralph Bates) who claims he can give them power if they join him in some ritual to recreate his dead master, but first they have to buy a certain item off a shopkeeper to perform this task. So, with the help of Dracula's servant Lord Courtley they meet in a rundown chapel to revive Dracula (Christopher Lee) from his ashes, but they chicken out of fulfilling their end of the bargain and to keep this quiet they kill the servant. Thinking that it will just blow over, but there wrong as now Dracula has been revived through his servants' corpse and he plans to take vengeance on those three for killing his servant.

Decent latter-day hammer effort that has very good production valves and some solid performances on show. The polished Victorian sets standout with sharp detail and great use of shadowy and dim lighting for its Gothic atmosphere. Though, the atmosphere was good it wasn't that grand in stature and it's not terribly suspenseful as we've seen it all before. The overall feel might come across a rather glum, but it has its lively parts and an undertone of pervading sexuality and flesh for some added boost. The compellingly clever plot is well thought out to begin with (great intro) and there are some unpredictable moments, but then it does seem to follow the usual pattern of the earlier Hammer Dracula's and ends rather unconvincingly after it looked like there was going to be an exciting finale. After a promising first half it does kind of drag in parts after the resurrection of Dracula and comes up with an uninspiring romance tale. The script is utter ham and quite stilted. Christopher Lee as Dracula doesn't really get that much too do, but whenever on screen his presence or quick flashes has some hypnotic pull making you wish he had more screen time. Most of the time his sneaking about in the background, counting down his victims in a husky voice (1,2 & 3) and giving orders to others (their children) to do his dirty work. Most of the performances were good (some deadpan) from the likes of Geoffrey Keen, Peter Sallis and John Carson as the three gentlemen and Ralph Bates as Lord Courtley is incredibly over-the-top, but seemed well suited for it. The ladies of the film or you should say Dracula's victims Isla Blair and the ravishing Linda Hayden give fair performances and some added eye-candy. The direction by Peter Sasdy is top-notch in delivery and he adds in some great sequences. The fine camera-work had sprawling crane and ground shots. While not forgetting the look into my eyes camera zooms too. Even the make-up and gore effects (nice flowing rich blood) were pretty well conceived and didn't come across as too wretched. Another highlight of the film would have to be piercing, but also moody music score.

Anyway maybe the formula was starting to wear thin in this film? Well, it does rehash certain elements and the usual clichés follow, but what do you expect from these campy hammer films. Its their trademark and has been a winning formula for them.

A mildly enjoyable hammer film, even if it's by the books.

This is a very unusual Hammer horror film in that it picks up exactly where the last one left off--providing some nice continuity. It seems that after Drac was impaled in the last film, his body disintegrated and all that was left was his powdered blood. A REALLY STUPID passerby decided to scoop up the blood and later sells it--followed by the not unexpected resurrection of Dracula once again!! Despite this weird reincarnation, the movie does offer some nice innovations and some that weren't all that necessary. Dracula was revived by a Devil worshiper and three perverts. Just before Dracula revives, the three perverts get cold feet and kick the Devil worshiper to death. In an odd display of loyalty, Dracula decides to take revenge on the three man and their families because a sweet old Devil lover was needlessly killed! In most Dracula films his sidekicks are killed at the slightest whim by the vampire without a second thought. I really suspected that Christopher Lee's character was just looking for an excuse to shed some more innocent blood--and how he had them killed was pretty cool and unusual. However, were also some bad changes. Since the film came out in 1970 and the morals of the world were changing, the producer decided to "sex up the series" by adding a brothel scene and throwing in some gratuitous nudity. The entire scene could have remained and been just as effective without the boobies, but because of this some parents might want to think twice about allowing junior to watch this film. Of course, with all the killing and bleeding, this isn't exactly a kids' film anyway!! Overall, a very watchable addition to the franchise and a nice followup to "Dracula Has Risen From The Grave".

A couple final notes--when a dead woman is removed from the lake, the man who retrieved the body accidentally tripped a bit--and you can see the "dead lady" move her arm instinctively in response!! I'm amazed they didn't catch this or re-shoot the scene. Also, one of the three men marked for revenge is played by Peter Sallis (the voice of Wallace from "Wallace and Grommit"). It's interesting to see this man play a rather slimy part.