I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

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 ****

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'."

Hippies in '70s England resurrect Dracula and a descendant of Van Helsing's must do something about it. Weak later Hammer effort, desperate to stay trendy, has one major thing going for it: the reunion of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee in a Dracula movie. All the dated hippie stuff is a relic of its era that may provide a few unintended laughs but does nothing to contribute to creating a proper horror movie atmosphere. After a strong opening that shows how Dracula was killed in 1872, it's halfway through the movie before we see him again. Then, after he's resurrected, he doesn't do much of anything. Instead, he lets his acolyte (an overacting Christopher Neame) do all the dirty work. Cushing is the best thing about this and all of the best scenes involve him, including his two (sadly just two) scenes with Lee. At least there's also Stephanie Beacham and Caroline Munro providing the pretty. Some of the sets are nice and director Alan Gibson shows he has some flair but there's too many scenes that misfire. For example, scenes with potential (like Dracula's resurrection) are ruined by the "groovy" music used. While there's more wrong with the movie than the music, it would be interesting to see how a re-scoring with a less cheesy soundtrack would help it. All in all, it's worth a look for fans of Hammer and the stars. But it's really a disappointment because there's so little of them, especially Lee. Still, when they are on screen, they're fun to watch.

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/