Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Stephan Hammond It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

utgard14 One of the more ho-hum entries in the Hammer Dracula series, but still worth a look for fans. The special effects are hokey as all-get-out, the continuity with the prior film isn't there, and Christopher Lee seems bored most of the time. Patrick Troughton is good as the wild-eyed bushy-haired Klove, Dracula's servant. Also, this one uses a lot of elements from the Bram Stoker novel, which is interesting considering it took them six movies to do that. Overall, there are some ridiculous scenes but it's fun for what it is. I disagree with those who claim this is the worst of the series. Satanic Rites and the kung-fu one are much worse.

classicsoncall I'm by no means an authority on vampire lore, but it seems to me a plain old cross shouldn't send Count Dracula (Christopher Lee) into a tizzy the way it does here when he's about to put the bite on poor gal Sarah (Jenny Hanley). I thought it had to be an actual crucifix with the image of Christ on the Cross. Oh, and another thing, it seemed to me that the cross that Sarah shows the Priest (Michael Gwynn) at the frontier inn was a bit smaller than the one Dracula experienced when he went for that mouthful. Oh well, no big deal I guess.I get a kick out of the reviewers on this board who make their claim that this is either the best or the worst of the Hammer/Lee Dracula flicks. I don't know, this one seemed pretty good to me as far as it goes, with Christopher Lee exuding absolute evil as the famed vampire. He takes quite a few victims in this story, some by himself and even more by way of that bat roaming around the countryside. In terms of visuals, I thought this one offered quite a few gruesome victims, like those at the desecrated church and the loyal but disaffected assistant Klove (Patrick Troughton). Man, the scars on his back looked quite nasty, but almost tame by comparison to victim Paul (Christopher Matthews), who's impersonation of a slab of beef was downright hideous.But it wasn't all horror. This might be the best Hammer flick when it comes to featuring women's cleavage in a prominent role. You had Julie (Wendy Hamilton) at the inn and Tania (Anouska Hempel) at the Count's castle, but Sarah had the most interesting camera angles making it a bit difficult to concentrate on the story. Maybe the cinematographer just couldn't help himself.Back to my earlier comment on vampire lore. I was a little surprised at the finale when Dracula got taken out by a bolt of lightning to the iron spike he was wielding, thereby going out in a blaze of vampire glory. While all the time Sarah's beau (Dennis Waterman) was trying to figure out a way to defeat the Count. When all was said and done, it actually looked pretty simple, Simon.

GL84 Trying to locate their friend, a couple venturing through the countryside after him find that the evidence leads to a strange lord's Castle in the hillside where they find contains the vampire Dracula and must find a way of stopping the evil being from carrying on more harm.This here was quite a fun and enjoyable effort. One of the better elements here is the film displays the very first signs of the company's evolution within the time-period, as the shift towards mores sex and violence surprisingly fits the movie well. It allows for something most Hammer films don't do in managing to include their usual Gothic trappings with some additional gore and sleaze that come about here. The film's Gothic sensibilities are on display quite early here, not only due to the fact that it takes place at the castle itself which is the usually grand and ornate location featured in such affairs as that includes the usual grand hallways, twisting hallways and secret passageways with large drapes and candelabras lighting the way which make the sections of them staying at the castle quite fun. Likewise, the action quotient here is also enjoyable with the burning castle set piece in the beginning of the film is a nice scene to look at, as we see its long, elegant clock towers going up in flames as the central body burns brightly is impressive to view, the scenes of them wandering through the countryside trying to find a way to escape is quite nice while there's some nice work of him targeting the villagers who go up to help them. This ends up providing the film with a body count as his seduction of many of them provide this with some rather enjoyable scenes, as well as providing the lead-in for the finale which is so much fun with the resurrection in the coffin and finally detailing the series of chases and battles on the castle's fortress which make for quite a thrilling and truly rousing finish. Alongside an extremely creative and unique way that Dracula gets resurrected in this, there's a lot to really like here with this one while there's only a few issues here to contend with. The middle of the film could be seen as a weak point of the movie, as nothing of real significance happens, and it does tend to drag out a bit here with the traditional Hammer scenes, from the overlong set-up to get him out to the castle in order to disappear in order for their later search to occur and the later parts of them wandering the countryside stopping at the end where it takes forever for something to finish out. That seems to be the real beef with the film as too often they have scenes that seem to carry on forever that do absolutely nothing to get the plot going. Also, the scene where Dracula is seen scaling a wall by crawling up it was one of the most laughably bad scenes ever. It looks so ridiculous and silly that I can't believe it was even allowed into the final version of the film as it's just such a weak effect. Still, the pace here is the biggest issue.Rated R: Violence, Language, Nudity, and a sex scene.

GusF In spite of Christopher Lee's greater than usual screen time and Patrick Troughton's presence, this is by far my least favourite of the Hammer Dracula series. It's a rather uninspired affair. It seems like a hodge-podge of the best bits from the previous five films. It's basically Hammer by numbers. This is an observation rather than a criticism but it's a bit odd that this is the third consecutive "Dracula" film with a major character named Paul! Dennis Waterman is badly miscast as the very post and boring Simon Carlson. It's probably most notable for being Hammer stalwart Michael Ripper's final horror film for the company. He's as good as ever in his rather lacklustre swansong.On the bright side, Christopher Lee is still as wonderfully creepy and entertaining as Count Dracula as usual, in spite of the fact that he had seemingly tired of the role by this point. I liked the fact that it hearkened back to the novel (as well as the first film) in portraying Dracula as an elegant host. This is the first time that he has actually said more than a few, short lines to someone (other than one of his minions) since his conversation with Jonathan Harker in the original film. His death scene was awesome, the best sequence in the film. Patrick Troughton is excellent as is Michael Gwynn as the priest. I've never seen Jenny Hanley in anything before and I was struck by how much she resembled her mother Dinah Sheridan.