Last Rites

This film essentially starts off with Dracula having changed his name to "A. Lucard" (Gerald Fielding) and operating as the mortician of a small town in the United States where he has successfully turned certain key people into vampires in order to continue his evil ways. So when an emergency medical call is placed he sends an ambulance and the local doctor to the scene where they dishonestly pronounce the victim dead and feast upon the body once they bring it to the morgue. Immediately afterward, they kill the victim to prevent it from turning into a vampire and-after disguising the wounds-bury the body as soon as possible so that nobody will be the wiser. This all changes, however, when a young couple by the names of "Ted Fonda" (Michael David Lally) and "Marie Fonda" (Patricia Lee Hammond) lose their mother "Mrs. Bradley" (Mimi Weddell) to an apparent stroke. At least, that is what they are told. But rather than killing her after their feast, Lucard is shocked to learn that the body has been taken away from him for a burial service to be conducted at another location. And this creates all kinds of problems for everyone involved. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film started off well enough but it subsequently proceeded at a painfully slow pace afterward. Not only that, but the cast wasn't as well-chosen as it could have been either. For example, having Gerald Fielding play the part of Dracula was rather odd to say the least. He just didn't fit that particular role. Likewise, the low-budget special effects and action scenes were equally bad. In short, this is clearly not one of the better vampire films out there and I have rated it accordingly. Below average.

Marie (Patricia Lee Hammond) and her husband unwittingly expose a vampire cult at a mortuary after they demand her dead mother's body be delivered to the house for a wake. Problem is the vamps have already put the bite on ol' Grandma and she is expected to get up any minute now. This is one of those regional horror flicks prevalent in the late 70s/early 80s. The film is very low budget (the tops of sets can be seen) and features many other problems (like no Dracula, although I suspect distributor Cannon added that as the on screen title reads LAST RITES), yet it is oddly endearing. I like the desolate country location work (Vineland, New Jersey), the cast is decent and director Domonic Paris seems to have a good eye for his shots. In fact, it reminds me a bit of Don Coscarelli's PHANTASM (this flick also bears a 1979 copyright year) but with vampires running a funeral home.

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.

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.