Dracula 73

Modern horror movies love to place classic horror icons and characters in modern times and people love to hate modern horror movies for that! However, it really isn't something that's new, as this 1972 movie clearly demonstrates. It take the classic Hammer Dracula character and puts him into a 'modern' 1972 setting, no doubt also in an attempt to modernize and update the Dracula series, hoping this would boost the franchise again. It didn't really worked out though, since its one of the final Dracula movies from the Hammer studios but in all truth and honesty; I still quite liked it!

Lets face it, all of the older Dracula movies set in more classic settings were starting to get extremely repetitive. All of the movies were being more or less the same, with very little variety to them. And while in essence this movie is also really being the same as any other classic Dracula movie story-wise, it still manages to feel like a breath of fresh air, due to its difference in style and settings.

It definitely feels like a more modern movie, though of course in today's light, it still is a very outdated movie. It's really a product of its time, with some funky '70's clothing, music and type of characters.

You could complain about it that this movie doesn't have enough vampire action in it, since this is definitely true but in all honesty, the same can be said for a lot of Dracula movies, also those from the Hammer studios. Blame Christopher Lee for that, since he was the one who was done with the character pretty early on already but agreed to still appear in Dracula movies as the count, probably just because it was quick, good money for him. But he always made sure his role was being as limited as possible and also his dialog always needed to be cut down to a minimum. But how can you be mad at Christopher Lee for that? after all, he's still an awesome and very charismatic Dracula, in every movie in which he plays the character.

Also good news about this movie is that Peter Cushing returns in it, as professor Van Helsing. Or well, a decedent of him of course. It had been 12 years and 5 Dracula movies ago he starred opposite Christopher Lee. And he was truly missed in the 4 Dracula movies which that he didn't appeared in. Not just because he was a great actor but also really since he has just as much screen-presence and charisma as Lee and was capable of counterbalancing him. All of the Dracula movies without him basically lack a good and strong enough lead, that besides was being a memorable and likable enough character.

You could argue about it if it truly adds something that this movie got set in 1972, since Dracula himself doesn't even ever get outside I believe but it does bring some originality and more creativity to the series, while still maintaining a good and typical Hammer studios horror style to it.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Pythonesque, outlandishly stylish in parts - criminally battered out in others - 'AD, 1972' is a hugely enjoyable film. It is an excellent party movie - both in terms of subject matter and as an accompaniment to much alcohol, although this role was perhaps the final nail in the coffin for any fondness Lee had for Dracula. One has only to see his response to George Lucas putting fangs on a Yoda doll on the set of 'Attack of the Clones' to gauge this. Christopher Lee has often said that 'the Wicker Man' was his best film. The British film cognoscenti laud that film because of its chronological signposting of the beginning-of-the-end of the British film industry. He made 'Dracula: AD 1972' at the same time and his mono-syllabic - almost no-syllabic - role is perhaps what he compared Lord Summerisle to.

It's flaws, however, are what makes the film so enjoyable. Here is the old-men-of-Hammers' idea of what youth culture was like in the 1970s. Loads of RSC twits pretending to be cockney - Ben Elton, Damon Albarn and Jamie Oliver must have studied this film intensely. Stephanie Beecham's character - to the squirming of female viewers and the anger of male audience members - dates the ugliest man in Christendom, here. Van Helsing should have killed him first then made up an excuse: "He was an . . . ugh . . . yes, that's right an ugh-monster!" 'The Stoneground' - a kind of 'Mungo Jerry meets the Doors at Kenny Lynch's House' - achieve celluloid immortality - though I can find none of the tracks found here in their (only?) eponymous album. It is true that, had the filmmakers made a cardboard standee of Lee in costume instead of including the actor no-one would have noticed. Lee does not so much "phone-in" his performance as be photographed without his knowledge and have that photograph put on the internet then beamed back in time. Peter Cushing is the bedrock of the movie. The maestro portrays Van Helsing with calm dignity and a conviction unworthy of the manure that is the script. The above could be taken as advice not to see the film - but don't avoid it, you'll have the time of your afterlife.

An interesting entry into the series, but really, I feel there was still life in the 19th Century time frame. Bringing Dracula to the 70s was, I think a mistake. Christopher Lee seems to be mostly forgotten and never gets the opportunity to get out and do what he does best. He remains in an old disused church for the whole film and only has a few decent scenes. We have Peter Cushing here, of course, playing an excellent part as Van Helsing, which somewhat saves the film. Decent portrayals by Lee, Cushing, Beacham, Munroe and Neame are worth watching. The 2 best things about this movie are , 1, the opening. Hyde Park, and Dracula and Van Helsing and racing through on a horse drawn carriage battling it out. The carriage crashes and they are both thrown. Van Helsing recieving fatal wounds and Dracula impaled on a broken wheel. Pretty good stuff, although not enough lighting was used so the carriage top battle and following events are rather hard to see. 2, the finale. As Van Helsing plans to destroy Dracula he drives a silver bladed knife through the Count's heart, only to be removed by his Granddaughter Jessica. Van Helsing then lures Dracula out to his death. The first few moments between Lee and Cushing in this final battle are classic, and for the first time in the series history, the 2 main characters speak to each other. The film is worth a look, if you`re a fan of modern horror then Lee and Cushing will seem a little lost, but if you`re a fan of the old Hammer Dracula films, take a look, with the beginning and the end, you just might like it.

I don't understand why people constantly put-down this movie (and its sequel Satanic Rites Of Dracula) They're both great fun and much more enjoyable than the stodgy Taste The Blood Of Dracula (in fact Satanic in my opinion is the best of the whole Hammer Dracula cycle in my opinion!)

I've noticed lots of people pointing to the 7O's factor as feeling very dated- (well, what else were people supposed to be playing in 1972- 90's techno music?) I quite enjoyed Stoneground's little performance and to knock the soundtrack by Michael Vickers is unfair as it is constantly enjoyable and funky to listen to. Add the ever-reliable Peter Cushing and a Christopher Lee who DOESN'T look like he's going through the motions (even if he had doubts about doing the movie) and a well-off-the-wall- but enjoyable nevertheless performance by Christopher Neame as Johnny Alucard and you get a lovely slice of 70's horror nostalgia! And I'm sorry anybody with a spirit of fun about them has got to love a movie with lines like "Tell us about the blood, Johnny!" By the way I noticed a previous reviewer was confused by the beginning of the movie and whether Christopher Neame was a descendant of the character in the 1880 prologue- well of course he was! I thought that was made clear.... (by the way, interesting note of trivia, Mr Neame claims that when he was bit by Christopher Lee in the movie he did indeed become a full-fledged initiated vampire- he even lists it on his CV as a proud fact! See the Flesh and Blood Hammer Documentary for the full story.....)

In the late 1950s Hammer Films revolutionised horror with the likes of 'The Curse of Frankenstein' (1957) and 'Dracula' (1958) which, for the time, pushed boundaries in terms of gore (not least through the knowledgeable use of colour film) and eroticism. They were commercial and critical successes that resurrected a dead genre (pun intended) and opened the door for a boom in horror movies equivalent to that in the 1930s.

However, cut to the beginning of the 1970s and society itself had gone from Black and White to Technicolour due to the flowering of the counter-culture which saw all social institutions subject to intense criticism or outright attack and in horror we had seen the all-out assault of George A. Romero's 'Night of the Living Dead' (1968). As a result, recognising that quaint Vampire movies from England just don't get the scares they used to, Hammer tried to change things up. One thing they tried was ditching the subtle but potent eroticism for simply showing more tits and having the women engage in lesbianism. Another, more respectable, thing was to attempt to update the vampire story to make it more relevant to a modern audience. And from this comes 'Dracula AD 1972'.

The plot is basically the same as any other of the Dracula sequels that came in the wake of 'Dracula' (1958): the count, dead since his last encounter with Van Helsing is brought back by a dutiful underling and seeks revenge. The film begins with an impressive period piece prologue showing Dracula's staking a hundred years ago and then, panning up, a plane screeches across the sky announcing the updated setting. The film then cuts to an amusing scene where a group of young hip cats (led by the charismatic and aloof Johnny Alucard) have gate-crashed a party and are "terrorising" the owners in the most limp and middle-class way. Later on they talk of where the next far out thrill will come from when Johnny suggests a black mass. They all attend for kicks but get freaked out when Johnny seems to take it too seriously and wants Jessica (family name Van Helsing) played by Stephanie Beacham, to get involved. She declines but the Prince of Darkness is summoned with the aid of another girl and, awakened to the twentieth century, Dracula is out for revenge.

The film has been criticised by many as a failed attempt to desperately breathe life into the franchise, and while that charge can't be escaped, the conceit of the film to update Dracula is not a bad one. If anything, the failing of the film is that it didn't go far enough in its updating and still feels like the reserved period pieces which came before just in funky threads and platforms. What's more, director Alan Gibson (who would direct the next attempt to update Dracula with the much worse 'The Satanic Rites of Dracula') is no Terence Fisher and lacks the directorial subtleties which distinguish the earlier features. Still, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are sheer class, as always, and raise the film up a notch or two.

All told, it's a decent attempt, with some good moments, and manages to be fun ride. However, considering that 'The Exorcist' was around the corner, it's no surprise poor old Dracula couldn't cut it. Which is sad.