Une messe pour Dracula

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/

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.

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

The story concerns three middle-aged men seeking thrills, making a pact with a devil's disciple, backing out of that pact at the last moment, and then dying as well as their progeny for their lack of commitment. The story has some big holes, but is one of the better Dracula films in the Hammer series. You get what you generally can expect from Hammer: good character acting, lush cinematography, dutiful direction(ably done by Peter Sasdy), Christopher Lee(alas no Peter Cushing), beautiful young girls showing lots of cleavage, wonderful period costumes, and the film's shining grace is the score by James Hermann which is simply poetry put to music. Ralph Bates stands out as a Lord Courtly living a life of sin and debauchery. Good Hammer Fun!

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.