Last Rites

My quest to see every Dracula movie ever made brings me to this low-budget regional vampire film in which bloodsuckers in a small town, all prominent local citizens, feed upon people who have been wrongfully declared dead by A. Lucard (Gerald Fielding), the local mortician. To prevent their unwilling blood donors from joining the ranks of the undead, the vamps stake them once they are all done slurping; unfortunately, unforeseen circumstances sees one victim escaping their clutches and rising from her coffin...

The idea that these vampires have successfully carried out their operation for a long period of time without being rumbled is highly unlikely, but I'm willing to accept this, the film at least attempting to pump some new blood into an old genre. What I cannot forgive, however, is director Domonic Paris's languorous storytelling, which makes Dracula's Last Rites really drag for much of the time, and the atrocious editing, many shots continuing for far longer than they need to.

There are a couple of moments that are lot of fun -- a vampire is impaled on a picket fence, another is pinned to a door, and a creepy old vampire lady (Mimi Weddell) wanders around in a Alzheimers-style state of confusion -- but most of the film is talkative and very tedious. Definitely one for vampire/Dracula completists only.

3.5/10, rounded up to 4 for IMDb.

This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. This is a sequel to Dracula. And it is one of scariest movie ever made. This not a 3.8. This is a great movie. I give it 9 out 10. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. Dracula (1931) is better. But still this a great movie. Dracula (1992) is also better. Nosferatu (1922) is also better. But still this a very scary movie. A lot better then that crap Blood for Dracula. This one movie you do not want to miss. More people need to see this movie. It is a classic horror film. I need more lines and I am running out of things to say.

Not great but nowhere near as bad as some gear say. How could a movie that came out when this movie came out get hammered by someone as dated, it's 30 + years old of course it's not up to date in any part BECAUSE it's 30 fricken years old. Even a 30 year old Sci Fi movie is dated that is of course if Pan Am is doing daily trips to the moon and we have archeologists on Saturn digging up slabs that portend our past and future like 2001 a space odyssey. Would anyone say that's dated. And I'm not saying you can compare this to that because as most people know that is one of the most boring movies that have no plot this is just an old movie with huge gaps in the plot. I never talk about details of movies I talk about and as you see I don't call this a review. And most discussion about movie I do usually takes issue with other people and what they think. Childish probably, but I don't think when you're some Bozo who believes himself (herself) to be a closet movie expert to tell people what to watch and why you should not watch, I rip movies all the time but try to show that this is why I didn't like it on a personal scale. I I'm watching a 30 year old movie I'm not going to rip it because of that and not sure why anyone else would. No one seeing an Ed Wood film when it was released in the 50s would ever believe how many people would for whatever reason love watching his movies. And I truly like this movie it's small it's plot is not what you would expect and the ending surprised me. Watch it knowing it's not the greatest movie ever made and if you watch it knowing you will not recognize anyone and at time lighting is bad and dialogue is a little annoying muddy but this should all be things you should know already.

The plethora of reviews here are indicative of the obviously growing cult status of this movie! Methinks Mike and I are probably the only people to have ever seen this flick. I don't know about him, but I "inherited" the film (titled incidentally DRACULA'S LAST RITES) in a bulk purchase of some 1600 movies I made some 16 years ago, from a video shop that had gone to the wall! Unfortunately some four years later in a drunken and obviously disorientated state, I put it on!

Well what can I say? Hey, its a movie from Domonic Paris, a specialist in home-movies who has churned out a total of just four films between 1980 and 1997. This was his finest hour. Obviously filmed over a long weekend with a hand-held camera, script written over cornflakes, and a budget of probably $200. Basically no blood, plastic teeth from K Mart and "actors" from the local pool hall.

Best of all, no Dracula! If you want to find the home movie with the leastest, try and find a copy of this, although I suspect I have the only print left - and its in BETA!

Low budget horrors about a small-town undertaker who, in league with the town's doctor and sheriff, are secretly vampires feeding off accident victims and other faked fatalities. After vampirising their victims this thirsty threesome stakes the victim to prevent them becoming a vampire too.

Their shady dealings arouse the suspicions of Ted Fonda, the son-in-law of a recently deceased old lady. Then when the woman in question is not staked she escapes to becomes a bizarre comedy vampire creeping around the town scaring people.

The makers of the film tried for some arty shots but overall the film looks cheap. Some footage seems to be missing with a conversation that is yet to occur played over generic driving a car footage. At other times the film seems padded with several establishing shots of farm animals and rural fields.

With its combination of some shaky acting, artistic camera angles, Halloween-style music, talky scenes that go nowhere, disregard for accepted vampire lore, scenes switching from day to night to back again, a few bloody slasher-film type murders plus some traditional style fangings, this film is a delightful must for any bad movie fan.