Doctor Dracula

Doctor Dracula (1981)

BOMB (out of 4)

In 1975 director Paul Aratow made a film called Lucifer's Women but not too much is known about it. It's not clear whether the film was completed and never released or if it was never completed. It's one of those mystery films that ended up being released in 1981 as this film, which features drive-in maverick Al Adamson filming new scenes with John Carradine and throwing it all together. The film never makes too much sense but it has something to do with Dracula working as a shrink so that he can bite on women but there's another man, trained by Svengali, to do battle with him. Dracula vs Frankenstein this is not but I must say Adamson did a very good job at adding the new stuff in because the new scenes really don't stick out and they mix well with the original film. With that said, the film is deadly dull from start to finish without any energy in the movie. The film tries very hard to be dark and mysterious but it never comes off that way. It seems the original film is mainly to blame because we get long dialogue scenes where nothing ever happens. The added scenes at least feature John Carradine hamming it up a little bit. Apparently Adamson also cut out all the nudity from the original film, which certainly wasn't a good thing to do considering how dull the film turned out to be. This is a pretty worthless film but hopefully the history about the original film will come out at some point.

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 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.

This is a very scary movie. It is a true horror classic. It is not a 2. 2 is just underrating it. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. Dracula (Marsh 1931) is better. Dracula (1992) is also better. But still this is a great movie. If it does not scary you know movie will. Dracula (1958) is better. Still the movie is scarier then The Shinning. And that is not easy to do. Don Red Barry was a great actor. Nosferatu (1922) is also better. But still this is one of the better Dracula sequels. There have been a lot of Dracula sequels and most of them are great movies. This is one of the scariest movies from 1978. It is a must see.

"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.