Dracula jagt Mini-Mädchen

England's Hammer Studios did 9 Dracula or vampire films from 1958-1974:

1. Horror of Dracula (1958); 2. Brides of Dracula (1960); 3. Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966); 4. Dracula has Risen from the Grave (1968); 5. Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970); 6. Scars of Dracula (1970); 7. Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972); 8. The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973); and 9. The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974).

Christopher Lee plays the Count in all but "The Brides of Dracula" and "The Legend 7 Golden Vampires." Peter Cushing also stars in four entries as Van Helsing.

By the time of the seventh film the creative well was apparently running dry and Hammer decided to spice up the series by bringing the Count to present-day London (1972, of course), which was Hammer's response to other successful vampire films at the time taking place in the modern day, such as "The Night Stalker," "Blacula" and "Count Yorga." The story revolves around a group of hip counter-culture youths performing a black mass in an abandoned church for kicks (although the ringleader takes it serious) and they revive the blood-sucking prince of darkness. Havok ensues.

Peter Cushing appears as Van Helsing's descendant. Christopher Neame plays the nutjob who performs the black mass with utter relish. Also on hand are the stunning beauties Stephanie Beacham and Caroline Munro. Stephanie plays Van Helsing's daughter and Caroline has a small but significant role. There are a couple of other early-70s hippie babes as well.

The first half of the film borrows heavily from the previous "Taste the Blood of Dracula" in that the Count is resurrected in roughly the same manner, although "Taste" is more effective. Which isn't to say that "Dracula A.D. 1972" isn't a decent entry in the series, albeit bizarre. The main problem with the film is that the story doesn't seem to know what to do once Dracula is resurrected. For instance, Cushing's final battle with the Count is fairly lame for various reasons (I don't want to give anything away), not to mention Lee only appears for about 10 minute in the entire film, which is usual for the series, of course.

Another problem is the score. It screams "early 70s" in a bad way, but doesn't mesh with what is essentially a serious horror flick. Of course some would cite that as part of its charm. I said "serious horror flick, by the way, because this is not a goofy or campy flick despite the colorful hippie elements and lousy score.

What works best is that it's a great period piece. You'll get a groovy glimpse of England's counter-culture, including the hippie girls and a live performance by the band Stoneground (who didn't go anywhere beyond this movie, likely because their sound & style was already passe by 1972). So, the first half is fun and compelling, whereas the second half just sort of goes through the motions and peters out.

BOTTOM LINE: "Dracula A.D. 1972" is hard to rate because, despite the mediocre-ness of the story's second half, the film is a fun experience with numerous highlights. Hence, as a Dracula story I give it a C+, but for entertainment value I give it a solid B or B+.

The film runs 96 minutes and was shot in England.

GRADE: B-

You really can't blame Hammer studios for trying to do something different with their long-running Dracula franchise by the early '70s. This film has its share of detractors and most of those slam it because it feels "dated" to them, or because the legendary Count seems oddly out of place amongst all those groovy "modern-day" hipsters, man. For me, the trouble with "Dracula A.D. 1972" has nothing to do with its welcome new setting -- after all, if we accept that Dracula is a supernatural being who can sustain himself throughout the ages, why wouldn't that also include his living amongst us during the late 20th century? -- but unfortunately, the problem is that very little is done to take full advantage of the circumstances.

The movie opens with a spectacular prologue set in the 1800's where a runaway horse-drawn carriage races through a shaded forest with two figures atop it, fighting hand-to-hand: Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) and the vampire king himself, Count Dracula (Christopher Lee). In the midst of their struggle, the wagon crashes into a tree and is demolished. But the wise vampire hunter manages to grab a broken cart wheel and thrusts its wooden spoke into Dracula's chest, killing his enemy and reducing him to ashes. Van Helsing himself lives just long enough to witness Dracula's decay before succumbing to his death. But no sooner has the world become better off, when a young disciple of the Count (Christopher Neame) arrives at the scene to secure Dracula's remains in a vial.

We then leap to London "today" (meaning 1972, that is) where the disciple, now referred to as "Johnny Alucard" (cute), heads a naive young group of thrill-seeking teens (or twenty-somethings). They've tried everything they can think of for kicks, like crashing high society parties unannounced where they can boogey to the mod sounds of the performing rock group Stoneground (who do two songs). Alucard's latest scheme is to involve his gang in a devilish black mass. Gathering the guys and gals together inside the ruins of an old church, Alucard performs a satanic ritual which resurrects Dracula once more, and this time one of the naive chicks who is first to fall victim to him is raven-haired Caroline Munro. But Alucard and Dracula are more interested in corrupting Jessica (Stephanie Beacham), the blonde member of their little circle, who happens to be the great-granddaughter of the original professor. She is currently living with her grandfather (again played by Cushing) who himself is the descendant of the first Van Helsing, as well as being skilled in the black arts. He is a great asset to Scotland Yard when the mysterious murders start piling up, though much of the dull stretches in the movie lie within tiresome scenes of Cushing meeting with police investigators, and it's usually a challenge for me to remain alert for them any time I watch this.

It's never a bad thing to see Cushing and Lee in another film together, and they do get to shine in an updated climax where Dracula even gets to roar classic lines straight out of Bram Stoker's novel. Lee looks great as the count and he's magnificently ruthless in the few treasured scenes he has. But it's a pity that the filmmakers opted to keep Dracula confined to his claustrophobic quarters at the dilapidated church; he is never scene venturing anywhere else, so one then wonders what was the point of going through all the trouble of setting the story in modern society! The "20th century face lift" worked much better in other horror films of this era like COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE (1970) and BLACULA(1972). Though there are some moments to be savored with A.D. '72, this is somewhat of a missed opportunity and arguably the nadir of Hammer's Dracula series. **1/2 out of ****

Modern horror movies love to place classic horror icons and characters in modern times and people love to hate modern horror movies for that! However, it really isn't something that's new, as this 1972 movie clearly demonstrates. It take the classic Hammer Dracula character and puts him into a 'modern' 1972 setting, no doubt also in an attempt to modernize and update the Dracula series, hoping this would boost the franchise again. It didn't really worked out though, since its one of the final Dracula movies from the Hammer studios but in all truth and honesty; I still quite liked it!

Lets face it, all of the older Dracula movies set in more classic settings were starting to get extremely repetitive. All of the movies were being more or less the same, with very little variety to them. And while in essence this movie is also really being the same as any other classic Dracula movie story-wise, it still manages to feel like a breath of fresh air, due to its difference in style and settings.

It definitely feels like a more modern movie, though of course in today's light, it still is a very outdated movie. It's really a product of its time, with some funky '70's clothing, music and type of characters.

You could complain about it that this movie doesn't have enough vampire action in it, since this is definitely true but in all honesty, the same can be said for a lot of Dracula movies, also those from the Hammer studios. Blame Christopher Lee for that, since he was the one who was done with the character pretty early on already but agreed to still appear in Dracula movies as the count, probably just because it was quick, good money for him. But he always made sure his role was being as limited as possible and also his dialog always needed to be cut down to a minimum. But how can you be mad at Christopher Lee for that? after all, he's still an awesome and very charismatic Dracula, in every movie in which he plays the character.

Also good news about this movie is that Peter Cushing returns in it, as professor Van Helsing. Or well, a decedent of him of course. It had been 12 years and 5 Dracula movies ago he starred opposite Christopher Lee. And he was truly missed in the 4 Dracula movies which that he didn't appeared in. Not just because he was a great actor but also really since he has just as much screen-presence and charisma as Lee and was capable of counterbalancing him. All of the Dracula movies without him basically lack a good and strong enough lead, that besides was being a memorable and likable enough character.

You could argue about it if it truly adds something that this movie got set in 1972, since Dracula himself doesn't even ever get outside I believe but it does bring some originality and more creativity to the series, while still maintaining a good and typical Hammer studios horror style to it.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The Hammer Dracula series was mostly solid and entertaining, but the last three films were disappointing and three of Hammer's lesser efforts. Dracula A.D. 1972 has often been considered the worst of the Hammer Dracula films, for me it is one of the weakest along with Satanic Rites but by no means unwatchable.

Starting with what's good, the best assets are Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Cushing brings real dignity and class here to a character that ranks with his best, his dialogue is often absolutely terrible but he remarkably delivers it with much conviction and seriousness(without being overly so). Lee has very little screen time and even little dialogue but is a towering presence and the embodiment of evil. The cast generally actually are decent, with the most memorable being Christopher Neame, he overacts at times and does seem to be trying too hard at times to channel Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange but he is incredibly charismatic, very sinister and is so much fun to watch. There are three good scenes, the genuinely exciting opening coach fight which features one of Dracula's most memorable demises of the series, Dracula's resurrection which is one of the series' most imaginative and the tense and entertaining ending which is one of the series' better and more plausible ones. The photography is incredibly stylish and the lighting has a lot of vibrancy and atmosphere.

However, Dracula A.D. 1972's biggest problem is that it is very dated(especially in the production values, script and music), a term I try to avoid using but I do feel that it applies here. And this is not just by today's standards, it was dated back in 1972 as well. The sets are really lacking in atmosphere and are quite tacky and gaudy in colour, a cheaper version of Austin Powers. The very 1970s costumes and hair-styles are pretty much the same. The script is howlingly bad, Cushing has the worst of the dialogue(some of which are endless explanations) but the howlers come from Alucard, and while it provides some unintentional entertainment at first it gets very tiresome soon after. The film even tries to incorporate some Dracula mythos, but does absolutely nothing with it, a decent idea wasted. The soundtrack dates the film terribly, not only does it sound incredibly cheesy but it is always incongruous with what is going on, with tense scenes almost completely ruined by inappropriately 'groovy' music.

The story has its moments, but does drag badly and was in serious need of more suspense, mystery, excitement and tension. It is especially bad in the party scene, which goes on forever and serves no point to the story at all, instead showing off an exhausting display 1970s fashions and behaviour at its worst, complete with the most unconvincingly played hippies for any film. The direction is often far too languid, the characters are not really all that interesting or engaging(with the most important characters being severely under-utilised, Dracula and Van Helsing's rivalry is so much more interesting than everything else in this film, why not show more of it?) and while most of the acting from the main players is decent, Caroline Munro is mesmerising to watch but is wasted by being killed off too soon, Stephanie Beacham is sexy but quite vapid and the acting for the hippies is mostly terrible.

All in all, not unwatchable but one of the weakest of the Hammer Dracula series and lesser Hammer overall. 5/10 Bethany Cox

An attempt to corner a new market by Hammer. Starts promisingly with references to London and a generation clash as the central characters disrupt a cheese and wine evening . Looked on by their horrified elders they cause mayhem with their new music and wacky clothing which now look all dated and laughable. The resurrection of Dracula is th most impressive part of the film and has been reused regularly in stills footage. The modern settings leave scriptwriters uncertain where to progress next and a desperate Van Helsing searching for his niece is wasted in poor lighting & lack of dialogue. Take the opportunity to enjoy 70s interior decor throughout much of the film. The finale is worth watching alone. Colour's a bit garish but seeing Cushing recite a piece of melancholic Latin is a pleasure we never saw enough of. Watch beginning and end, don't bother with the middle & start your own satanic cult from the black mass scenes. Sects have done that.