Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Leofwine_draca DRACULA A.D. 1972 is the sixth and penultimate instalment of Hammer's long-running DRACULA saga. The writers had the clever idea to update the setting to the then-modern day to bring it in line with contemporary American vampire flicks including THE NIGHT STALKER, BLACULA, and COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE. As such, it's a film which goes all-out in depictions of early 1970s culture, with lots of hip, happening dialogue, extended party and music scenes, and couples making out. Although there's the requisite bloodshed and gruesomeness, the most outrageous thing you'll see here are the fashions. Things begin with an excellent pre-credits action scene in which Lee's Count is staked in a novel way, before that clever-clever segue to the plane overhead which is second only to the famous 'bone' scene in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. From this point on, Christopher Neame's sinister Johnny Alucard helps the Count get resurrected in a de-consecrated church and then feeds him a string of victims before Van Helsing's descendant steps in. The only real problem I have with this film is the way the plot seems over-simplified and dragged out. Other than the modern setting, it's the same old story told again. Christopher Lee has very little screen time and little to work with, although Peter Cushing is a master at depicting steely resolve and comes across well. Stephanie Beacham makes for an arresting damsel in distress, just as she did in ...AND NOW THE SCREAMING STARTS, and the likes of Caroline Munro, Michael Coles, and Michael Kitchen are all utilised well in their smaller parts. Due to the slow-moving scenes earlier on, the climax gets a little rushed, but overall this remains watchable, although not great. Hammer would end the series on a high with the superior, thriller-y SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA made the following year.

moonspinner55 After a curious, potentially intriguing and all-too-brief prologue featuring Peter Cushing's Van Helsing in 1872 grappling with Christopher Lee as Dracula atop a runaway carriage--and finishing with part of the wooden wheel sticking out of Dracula's chest--this Hammer horror skips ahead 100 years, sticking us with a group of hedonistic (and boring) teenagers in the Chelsea district of London. These twits and birds, including Stephanie Beacham as a Van Helsing descendant, participate in a satanic ritual presided over by their 'leader,' one Johnny Alucard, a disciple of Dracula, on the 100th anniversary of the Count's demise. Though roundly-panned at the time of its release--and dated within a year of its arrival--"Dracula A.D. 1972" now has a small, loyal following, and it's understandable why. Lee's majestic entrances are delectably sinister, and no actor ever looked more stylish and graceful while wearing fangs and biting into a woman's neck. Cushing, too, is quite good as Van Helsing's son, a bemused grandfather and a welcome sight playing opposite Lee in these roles for the first time since 1958. However, Don Houghton's talky, balky script is a lazy piece of goods, while director Alan Gibson can't even stage a Black Mass with any sense of urgency or creepy excitement. Followed by another present-day bloodsucker (and Lee's final bow to his Hammer-Dracula era), "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" in 1973. *1/2 from ****

classicsoncall Without the opening half hour or so, this is almost an okay Hammer flick. But oh my, what's with Stoneground and their hip rendition of 'Alligator Man'? That party scene was just ludicrous, as described by one of the blonde party goers who stated "It's all rather a bore".But then things got moving with the black mass satanic rites that brought forth Count Dracula from his century old dirt nap. The blood and ashes bit was pretty interesting, as well as all the new vampire lore introduced in the story, like the silver blade business and running water as a vampire killing strategy. And let's face it, Stephanie Beacham was absolutely stunning as the target of Christopher Lee's vampire revenge spanning the past hundred years.So with Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame) demanding the power of immortality from the resurrected Master, I'm surprised Dracula didn't turn the faucet on him himself. This 'Bacchanal with Beelzebub' ended on a high note though; after getting the holy water treatment from Van Helsing (Peter Cushing), the screen writers opted for a neat switcheroo - instead of a stake through the heart, Dracula had his heart put through a stake. I think Jessica van Helsing (Beacham) had it right when she mentioned early in the picture - "The operative word is 'yuck'."

GusF Considering that this is generally regarded as the worst of the Hammer "Dracula" films and one of the worst Hammer horror films, my hopes were not high. However, I bloody loved it. Yes, it may not be the cleverest or the deepest of the films and parts of it - most of the "modern" dialogue and Alucard's death scene particularly - are rather cringeworthy but it's outrageous fun! Other parts - such as the resurrection scene and the line "By the 6,000 terrors of Hell, I baptise thee!" - are just so wonderfully silly and bizarre that I couldn't help but love it. It's just so much fun. Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are as excellent as ever and the film has a very strong supporting cast overall. I criticised "Scars of Dracula" for being basically a hodge-podge of the best bits from the first five films. I think that Hammer might have realised that they'd tapped out the Gothic elements as regards the Dracula films and the series needed a change of pace by moving it into the present day. I wonder if that decision was inspired by "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" doing the same for its film series the previous year.