Doctor Dracula

Beware this is great stuff if you need to sleep or if you need a mild headache.The back story of these two movies is better than either version. Lucifer's Women (1974/75) was indeed completed and shown theatrically. I believe it ran 65 to 75 minutes in length. So why can't anyone seem to find it haunting a dollar DVD bargain bin nowadays? Well because it was a poor mans hardcore porn/horror flick with very limited distribution. Skip ahead to 1977 and we find a slightly new haphazard plot line made from the footage of Lucifer's Women and newly shot footage by a different crew and actors! Since all the sex scenes were excised out of Lucifer's Women it was sold off to network TV as Dr. Dracula! Yes,network TV as in the ABC Network. Dr. Anton S. LaVey's involvement was only with Lucifer's Women as technical advisory. I believe there were a few of his Church members involved on the production side and that's how he became involved. As for the films them selves, they are only of interests to Satanists and low budget film scholars - from a minor historical point that is. If you can somehow locate one of the handful of bootlegged copies of Lucifer's Women floating around out there watch it (you'll need nerves of steel) on a double bill with Dr Dracula. Pay attention to the differences and learn how not to make a worse movie out of an already bad one.

I've been on a quest to see all of Adamson's films for years and so imagine my surprise when this rarity turned up on local TV before Halloween. This is another of Adamson's patchwork features cobbled together using an older unfinished film (LUCIFER'S WOMEN) mixed with newer footage featuring Adamson regulars John Carradine and Regina Carroll. During commercial breaks the host of the show mentioned the overabundance of blue eyeshadow used in the movie and how it doesn't make sense that a person can be possessed by a fictional character (Svengali). Unintentionally funny is the deep voice used by a possessed woman which makes her sound like she's been possessed by the spirit of Suzanne Pleshette. Be sure to take a nap before watching the movie because it may put you to sleep.

I knew before the film began that it would be bad. After all, it was directed by Al Adamson--one of the only directors in the history of film that might have been worse than Ed Wood, Jr.! However, what I didn't expect was for the film to be so dull. Other Adamson "masterpieces" such as BRAIN OF BLOOD and Dracula VERSUS FRANKENSTEIN are horrible movies--dumb, cheesy and inept on every level--and a lot of fun to poke fun at with friends. However, with DOCTOR Dracula, while the movie still is dumb and cheesy, the film actually isn't 100% terrible--only about 95.6%! While the plot is totally convoluted and the film has way too many bad guys (plus, why have Dracula AND Svengali?), it did have appearances by the competent Don Berry (who has over 200 films to his credit) and John Carradine (who has over 300 films to his credit). Both (particularly Berry) were decent in their roles and Adamson manages to make a bad film that isn't bad enough to laugh at with friends--but it is bad enough to put you to sleep. As for me, this Adamson film was too good to watch and while still only managing to earn a meager 2, it's pretty much a waste of time even to bad film freaks like myself.

Not a very well known title in my native UK, but then anything which isn't a Hammer Dracula isn't well known over here. Having just recently watched Doctor Dracula, and knowing nothing about the format I thought this had to be a TV-Movie. While enjoyable, there are some really hammy lines in the dialogue. The character, Svengali, has to steal the show, if even for that beard!

On the whole, this is quite an enjoyable presentation, with an occasional appearance from the soundman's boom, and very little blood. Found the ending quite original though...who would have thought of destroying ..Al Adamson obviously.

"Doctor Dracula" carries a 1981 copyright but was composed of footage delivered by two different directors between 1974 and 1977, the final result ending up in a television package from Samuel M. Sherman's Independent-International distribution company. Originally completed and briefly released in 1974 as "Lucifer's Women," this version by Paul Aratow was highly charged erotica with explicit nude scenes, a lesbian love affair, and a Satanic orgy for its literal climax. Sherman and partner Al Adamson saw something in it that they could use, deleting all the R-rated material for a more family friendly overhaul featuring Adamson veterans John Carradine, Donald Barry, Susan McIver, Regina Carrol, and Geoffrey Land as a totally ineffectual Dracula, posing as psychiatrist Anatole Gregorio (making one long for Zandor Vorkov in "Dracula vs. Frankenstein!"). "Lucifer's Women" was deliberately paced yet not that bad, Larry Hankin's John Wainwright a stage magician claiming to be the reincarnation of renowned mesmerist Svengali, here blessed with his own lovely Trilby in Jane Brunel-Cohen, who pulls off her character's naivete while simultaneously sleeping with every man who desires her. Both titles share the same 90 minute running time, Adamson shooting an additional 54 minutes to remove all the best aspects of Aratow's cut, Hankin the only returning cast member, his Svengali easily outclassing Land's meager Dracula. Former screen and stage Dracula Carradine misses out on the vampire but receives top billing for the last time in an Adamson picture, a decent sized role as Hadley Radcliff (11 minutes screen time), leader of the cult of devil worshippers who need Trilby to prolong their existence, before their enemy can deny them the satisfaction. It's not so difficult to follow for an Adamson mishmash, yet still inferior to its source material, building up the Svengali character at Trilby's expense, the new stalking scenes for Dracula stopping things dead in their tracks. Adamson's routine footage is strictly by-the-numbers, and one tends to miss the frequent absences of drop dead gorgeous Jane Brunel-Cohen, especially those well shot nude seduction scenes. No backstory to display how a centuries old vampire becomes a successful doctor, and his targeting of a cult seeking immortality could have been the germ of a great storyline, but not in this director's hands. Paul Aratow's 1974 original is now easily available for comparison, a pleasant surprise on an obviously skimpy budget, by filmmakers skilled in the adult film industry.