• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

Garp's Franchise Film reviews

'Kiss of the Vampire' [1963]

Another Hammer vampire flick that features neither Christopher Lee nor even mentions Dracula. Still, it's basically another Dracula film in all but name. A couple of very English newlyweds get lost and stumble upon an old hotel in the shadow of a mysterious castle. When the castle's inhabitants invite them to dinner, everyone becomes firm friends. Yes, it's all fun and games until the fangs come out...

'Kiss of the Vampire' comes across as a bit of a throwback. Horror and gore are dialed back, but they're not really replaced with anything much to make this film scary. 'Eerie' is probably the best it has going for it. The standout scene - the epitome of eerieness here - is the masked ball, especially when the fake frivolity is suddenly curtailed when it's no longer required.

Acting credits go to Clifford Evans as the Van Helsing stand-in, albeit more liquored-up and crotchety, and to Peter Madden as the innkeeper, though the leads hold their own well enough. Noel Willman has the thankless task to fill Christopher Lee's boots as the Head Vampire of this cult (while beautifully coiffured). Things get interesting when the gaslighting begins, but it gets dropped fairly rapidly, alas.

The climax is wonderfully silly, reminiscent of another film released in 1963, 'The Birds'. There's enough here - sets, acting, atmosphere - to entertain, but go in with expectations in check.
 
'Dracula: Prince of darkness' [1966]

The film begins with a recap of Lee's previous outing as Dracula [1958], reminding us that he was properly desiccated at the end and could comfortably fit into a shoebox. We pick up the story 10 years later, when two English couples are traipsing around the Carpathians in order to broaden the mind. Despite warnings, they wander into a seemingly empty castle...

I enjoyed this more than I should have. The set-up is long (Lee doesn't appear until nearly 50 minutes in), the blood and scares are sparse, but the characters and acting drew me in. Francis Matthews displays a Cary Grant-like manner and accent and Andrew Keir as the  no-nonsense monk (a Van Helsing stand-in; Cushing appears only in the prologue) is excellent. Distant shots of the castle have a 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' look about them, but the sets are great.

Lee's resurrection is done well although Lee himself is a bit of a letdown. I'm not a fan of the silent Dracula (Lee speaks not a word here) and his hypnotizing gaze didn't work on me. Even his downfall seemed more Frankenstein's monster than Dracula.

Nonetheless, it kept my interest. With a bit of vampire banter, Cushing, and a more dramatic ending, I would have loved this (throw in some bats too; I missed the bats). As it was, I found it to be above-average filler.
 
^ I watched it a few days ago myself...

Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)
The third entry in Hammer's Dracula series thankfully brings back Christopher Lee (via a blood-soaked butcher ritual) but Peter Cushing sadly doesn't return this time. He is replaced very nicely by Andrew Keir, as a grumpy gun-toting, Vampire-hunting Monk. A group of terribly English tourists stay a night at Castle Dracula, their "Yes I know we'll probably be killed in our sleep but lets not make a fuss darling" attitude is a hilarious send-up of British holiday-makers (and one of them is played by Captain Scarlet!).

 
'Dracula has risen from the grave' [1968]

This film continues the saga of Dracula as he rises from his (watery) grave. His resurrection is a result of extraordinary coincidence and bad luck, but still he wastes no time seeking out damsels he can lure to his, er, basement.

Let's get the good stuff out the way first. Lee talks, which automatically places it higher in my estimation. The sexual energy is palpable here - it is the bread and butter of this film, in fact - with ample cleavages front and centre. Lee looks so good in a cloak as he suddenly and repeatedly appears, like a long black candle. Rupert Davies holds his own as yet another Van Helsing stand-in (I miss Cushing) and Veronica Carlson is beautiful.

Barry Andrews is the hero/love interest, displaying a cheeky chappy persona much like Tommy Steele minus the tunes. I personally found it irritating; it was very one-note and the film dragged for me when focus strayed from Lee. There isn't really much of a story here. Dracula spends much of his time in the bowels of the bakery/tavern. We see so much of his red eyes you wonder whether he is allergic to the yeast.

Another Hammer Dracula film that just misses the mark for me, I'm afraid. The Kung-Fu Vampires can't come quick enough for me.
 
BONUS: 'Count Yorga, Vampire' AKA 'The Loves of Count Iorga' [1970]

Count Yorga, last lover of a recently deceased woman, conducts a seance for her daughter. In doing so, he hypnotizes her, drawing her and her attractive friends into his vampiric ways...

This film has an unusual history. It was conceived as a soft-porn film, but changed to straight horror. Still, elements of it origin remain intact and it's obvious to see where the camera would have lingered a little longer.

There is something about the look of a 1970s film that fits so well with horror. The grain? The fashion? Hair? I don't know what it is, but it works. This is a low budget affair with surprisingly good acting. Robert Quarry makes for an excellent pseudo-Dracula as Count Yorga (or, sometimes, 'County Orga' it sounded like). His restrained yet terse conversation with the blood specialist doctor (Roger Perry, also no acting slouch) is particularly good.

The story is workmanlike - vampire stalks beautiful women, menfolk try to stop him, authority doesn't want to listen, etc - and the scares are so-so (except for the kitten scene. You may want to avert Fluffy's eyes). The ending was telegraphed but still effective nonetheless. I enjoyed it well enough alone, but I could see this being a crowd-pleaser with the right group of like-minded friends and a few beers.
 
BONUS: 'The Return of Count Yorga' [1971]

The Count returns, this time in San Francisco with a bevy of Zombie Vampire Brides. Perhaps not unsurprisingly unimpressed with his lot, he seeks out beautiful Cynthia (Mariette Hartley) instead.

After the unexpected enjoyment gained from the original, this sequel can only be seen as a letdown. There's no effort spent explaining how Yorga survived his apparent demise the previous year, nor why he has a cemetery full of Zombie Vampire Brides buried in the grounds of an orphanage. The filmmakers don't capitalize on Quarry's skill with sarcastic banter and he isn't given anything interesting to do. (The scene where he loses a Fancy Dress contest to someone dressed as - guess who - Dracula doesn't count.) Roger Perry also returns from the original but in a different role, confusingly, although still a doctor; perhaps the new beard is supposed to distract us, I don't know.

Mariette Hartley is good as the hypnotized prey this time - I spent the entire film wondering where I had seen her before. Her filmography is extensive, mostly secondary characters and TV work; I concluded it was probably from her 'Star Trek TOS' appearance that I recognised her. Craig T Nelson makes his first big screen debut here - it's OK, nothing groundbreaking. His scenes (no fault of his) are the worst, featuring far too much Scooby-Doo-like chasing for my tastes.

There isn't a stand-out scene like the kitten-chomping one from the original, and indeed I nodded off a few times, seemingly missing nothing important when I awoke. The ending mirrored the original again, to diminishing returns. Friends and alcohol wouldn't make this one any better, I'm afraid.
 
'Taste the Blood of Dracula' [1970]

Three seemingly respectable Victorian gents are getting bored with their monthly jaunt to an East End brothel. To liven things up a bit, they decide to enlist the help of a young Satanist, keen to resurrect the world's most evil man. Things don't end well.

Say what you want about Hammer's Dracula films, if nothing else they at least try for continuity. When last we encountered our antihero, he was impaled on a giant crucifix. And here he is again, two years later, struggling to free himself from that very fate. The film then focuses on our trio of bored businessmen looking for sport, headed by an excellent Geoffrey Keen (best known for his role as 007's Minister of Defence). There are a number of well-known British actors on display here - Peter Sallis, Isla Blair, Martin Jarvis, Ralph Bates and Roy Kinnear - and with the start of a new decade, Hammer rips the bodice open a little more in places.

'Taste the Blood of Dracula' is a revenge flick, which makes a welcome change from the usual Expand-My-Harem type plots so far (although, to be honest, there is a touch of that here too). Lee is shot from floor-level a lot of the time, making his impressive stature appear even more, well, impressive. Ralph Bates overacts like mad and Anthony Corlan as the love interest is a bit wet.

There's a fair amount of location work, and the sets are excellent, although the special effects are ropey. Still, the story and the acting of the main leads kept my interest throughout after its lacklustre predecessor.
 
'Count Dracula's Great Love' [1973]

Four beautiful women get waylaid on their journey to the Playboy mansion, seemingly, and end up at a Doctor's castle instead. Wouldn't you know it, the Doctor is actually that old rascal Dracula who needs a virginal bride to resurrect his skeletal daughter. Surely one of them will fit the bill, right?

This 1973 vampirefest appears to be heavily indebted to Hammer. There's the same voluptuous women, the creaky sets, jarring music and buckets of unusually bright blood. What it doesn't have, though, is much of a story.

There's a few things that made this a difficult watch for me. The dubbing is bad and the editing is atrocious. The story didn't make a lot of sense and I was often confused what was going on and why. This is the first Paul Naschy film I'd seen and his resemblance to John Belushi was offputting. On the plus side, the women's frequent reluctance to keep their clothes on kept me from falling asleep. If that's enough for you to seek this out, god bless you, I won't judge, but honestly it's pretty bad.
 
'Scars of Dracula' [1970]

Lee returns as Dracula yet again, rising from the ashes in a rather unique yet also silly way. Getting his fangs back into gear immediately, the enraged townsfolk grab their pitchforks and torches and try to burn his castle down. They are entirely successful and the film ends.

OK, I jest. It seems you can't trust your local yokel with a match these days, as both the castle and the Count survive pretty much intact. A playboy on the run inadvertently crosses path with Mein Host, goes missing, and his brother and buxom girlfriend sally forth to solve the mystery...

'Scars of Dracula' starts well. The opening scenes are great and it's disappointing that the film rarely rises to that level again. Lee is terrific here, imbuing Dracula with a mix of charm, indifference and sadism - one of my favourite performances of his so far. There are a plethora of well-known Brit TV faces on show - Dennis Waterman is surprisingly good (if you want to know where Ewan McGregor got his inspiration for young Ob-Wan's accent, watch this) and a pre-Magpie Jenny Hanley isn't given much of a role except to boost her cleavage. A post-Dr Who Patrick Troughton is a great Igor-like character and Michael Gwynn ('Lord' Melbury in Fawlty Towers) plays a rather lacklustre priest.

Unfortunately, despite some good make-up effects, the film isn't particularly scary and it meanders somewhat. It's unclear what Dracula wants this time (yes, yes, blood, of course, but on its own it doesn't make for much of an arc). Still, his demise is spectacular, but it felt like a long film to get there.
 
BONUS: 'The Fearless Vampire Killers' [1967]

Roman Polanski's 'horror-comedy' is a strange beast. Polanski directs himself as Alfred, the young assistant to a doddering vampire killer (Jack MacGowran). 'Strange' as it is neither horrific nor comedic. As I was watching it, I couldn't fathom who this film was made for. Considering the year, I imagine it was the Turned-on-Tuned-In-Dropped-Out generation and i just wasn't getting it. So be it.

Great care and money, it seems, had been spent on the sets which were fantastic - ditto the costumes, especially during the ball scene towards the end. Whether you find it amusing depends on how highly you rate slapstick and Jewish stereotypes; don't bother worrying whether you'll find it scary. It isn't. Ferdy Mayne as the Count is good, taking this film far more seriously than it deserves. And it's morbidly interesting to see Sharon Tate as Roman's love interest. She is beautiful here, making it all the more disconcerting when she is attacked, blood-splatters and all. Roman is no actor and MacGowran's shtick got old quickly.

Maybe I'm just too damn old, or square, sober and jaded, but I did not enjoy this. I appreciated it on an aesthetic level - it really does look great - but it left me asking, "What's it all about, Roman?"
 
'Dracula A.D. 1972' [1972]

Cushing & Lee reunite and recreate Van Helsing & Dracula respectively in a tale spanning 100 years. Van Helsing offs Drac in the first few minutes (a preposterously unlucky break for the Count) back in 1872. Of course, some vampire groupie collects his ashes, these being sacred relics handed down through subsequent generations. Flash forward to a Groovy London in 1972 and the duelling descendants meet for a final showdown.

Was it budgetary reasons that made Hammer ditch the gothic tone, or was it to entice the youngsters with a hip new cast? Possibly both. London is still swinging in the early 70s, according to this film, what with crashing parties hosted by squares (the music by Stoneground is pretty good) and smoking pot, although they are strangely sexually chaste here. Dracula's resurrection is one of the best, initiated by Johnny Alucard (see what they did there?) played with gusto by Christopher Neame. Stephanie Beacham plays Cushing's granddaughter and isn't half bad, though Cushing is the top draw here. Lee, as is often the case, doesn't get much to do except skulk around the deconsecrated church, waiting for Alucard to bring him neck fodder.

The film gets bogged down a bit and becomes a police procedural, sort of like The Sweeney in tone, until the final confrontation between the two old foes (or, rather, one original foe and his foe's grandson who happens to be the spitting image of him). It isn't really worth the wait, alas, unless you're a sucker (no pun intended) for spurting blood.

'Dracula A.D. 1972' tried for something different (or just cheaper), not altogether successfully. Worth it for the Cushing-Lee reunion, but only just.
 
BONUS: 'The Return of Dracula' [1958]

You never can tell where the old Count will pop up next. Here he flees Eastern Europe in the late 50s, taking a stranger's identity (and his life) en route to the Land of the Free.

This could easily be dismissed as merely an adequate B-horror movie - I was planning to do as much - but as it continued, it drew me in a little deeper. The story is very simple - Dracula fools a wholesome American family into believing he is their long-lost cousin from the Old Country while secretly accruing his vampire horde for total domination. The scares are of the jump kind, no necks are seen to be bitten and the only shocking image is a spoiler of sorts.

Still, I was in the mood to view it more favourably. Francis Lederer is excellent as the iconic vampire, despite normal teeth and mostly contemporary dress. He is charming and aloof with a rich accent - part Lee, part Legosi. He has the usual abnormal habits of a vampire, missing all day and reappearing at sunset. The dynamics this sparks in a family trying to make him feel at home makes this film more interesting. There is the obligatory repulsion of crosses, but that too seems to have layers. Maybe I was looking for things that weren't there, but 'The Return of Dracula' appeared to want to suggest the insidious evil of godless immigrants - "Look, we welcome them, only asking them to assimilate, and yet they are the ones trying to change us!" Not quite 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' but certainly of that ilk, I'd argue.

Then again, maybe I'm crazy and it's just a cheapo horror filler. Either way, it entertains. Feel free to dig deeper too, if you wish.
 
BONUS: 'Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter' [1974]

A mysterious hooded figure is draining damsels in an Olde Worlde village. But not of blood - their youth! Fortunately, Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter has been called to the scene because, you know... vampire hunter.

OK, let's cut to the chase here. This film is a bore. Despite having a fabulously sci-fi hero name, Horst Janson is terrible as the lead. He is as wooden as the overly elaborate stakes he carries with him. John Cater is better as his semi-comic sidekick with a ridiculous hunchback (why?) but the main reason to keep your eyes on the screen is Caroline Munro. She gets more of a role here than 'Dracula A.D. 1972' but only in time on film - her character is one-note, that note being beautiful, seductive and barely clothed.

The film has a bit of a twist (if I was paying more attention I probably would have seen it coming) and an actor that looks like the drummer from Queen. There are more swashbuckling scenes, bizarrely, than horror scenes, making this a weird hybrid that might appeal to some, I suppose. The only thing I felt it added to the genre was the obscure revelation that vampires can reanimate dead toads. You live and learn.
 
BONUS: 'Dracula' [1973]

Jack Palance dons the famous fangs and cloak in this made-for-TV version of Bram Stoker's tale.

I feel I should have liked this more than I did. Palance isn't an obvious choice in my mind for a Transylvanian Count, but he does a great job bringing something new to the old bloodsucker. His Drac is angst-ridden over his lost love, later turned vengeful when his eternal happiness with her doppelganger is quashed. We've seen pathetic vampires before, but I liked this version a lot.

The location work is also excellent, lots of old castles, cobbled stone roads and the like. Nigel Davenport wasn't sprightly enough for me as Van Helsing and Simon Ward is a bit wet as the romantic hero. The main problem for me was that it perhaps took itself a tad too seriously, too reverently. There are some nice touches here and there - such as the wolves running with the coaches - but  apart from Palance not much that raises it above mediocrity.
 
'The Satanic Rites of Dracula' [1973]

Hammer never seems to know what to do with Lee's Dracula. Here he is again, still in 1970s London, still MIA for most of his film. Cushing returns as Van Helsing, with Joanna Lumley replacing Stephanie Beacham as his granddaughter, and Michael Coles gets to play the inspector who 'knows a guy'.

Dracula has been resurrected - again. Unusually, this occurs offscreen and years earlier, though Lee still gets a worthy entrance nonetheless. He heads a cult, as well as property development business (wearer of many hats, is Drac). The cult members are interested in eternal life; Dracula has something much more sinister in mind...

To damn it with faint praise, this was not a terrible film. It starts well - the ritual scenes and a government agency's attempt to infiltrate the cult are well done - but it meanders quickly. This is a film that would work just as well without Dracula, as he is mostly irrelevant. 'Van Helsing vs the Satanic Cult' would have been a more apt - but less marketable, perhaps - title. The cult's two henchmen are the most ludicrous pair, dressed like Citizen Smith, and Dracula's brides are lacklustre. In an attempt to add some spice, their deaths end up being more silly - vampires, it seems, can be defeated with a combination of nets and sprinkler systems. So far, so Scooby Doo.

The effects are pretty good, in places - Lee's obligatory disintegration is one of the best, although his death, brought on by a particularly prickly bush, is less good. As a culmination of Lee & Cushing's work together for Hammer, it's disappointing; as a low-expectations double bill with 'Dracula A.D. 1972' it just about suffices.
 
BONUS: 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' [1992]

Francis Ford Coppola hits a mark somewhere between Baz Luhrmann and Tim Burton with his version of the undead Count. The doppelganger love interest theme from Dan Curtis' 1973 adaptation gets reprised here, starring a host of well-known faces running the gamut from atrocious to OTT and everything in between.

Should I start by saying how awful Keanu Reeves is in this? Do I have to? It's achieved legendary status, of course, and I won't be able to offer anything new. He is hamstrung by being coerced into an accent that goes past stilted into something else entirely unique. Then, later, he is made to look even more ridiculous with prematurely grey hair. Why? Was Coppola jealous of him or something? And then there's Gary Oldman as Dracula. As the ancient Count, he looks somewhat like a pantomime dame. I suppose if you hire Oldman, you expect some scenery chewing and he doesn't hold back. As the dashing prince, he is more subdued. Acting is balance, yer see?

Sadie Frost does well as the flighty friend Lucy and Winona Ryder appears better than she is by being paired with Reeves. Anthony Hopkins might be my favourite Van Helsing so far - he is part-crazed himself yet also matter-of-fact and nonchalant about cutting off heads. Richard E Grant, Cary Elwes and Tom Waits all perform admirably too. Well done, sirs.

In terms of spectacle, you are not left wanting. There is always something to see on screen - too much, perhaps. Coppola borrows heavily from Murnau's 'Nosferatu' with his use of shadows, the rising form the coffin, etc, though Universal Studios gets a look in now and then. Despite the lush settings, Hammer seems less of an influence, with only Drac's blood-red eyes being noted.

So, is it any good? Well... It's certainly something to see. Sets, costumes, make-up, effects - it's wonderful to look at and it's rarely boring (well, Keanu...) It's not definitive Dracula but there's something so preposterous about it that it would be a shame not to experience it first hand.
 
BONUS: 'Der Hund von Baskerville' [1914]

Taking a break from vampires to return to yet another version of Doyle's 'Hound of the Baskervilles'. This is a silent 1914 version, a bonus feature from the Flicker Alley blu-ray of the 1929 version of the same name.

If you were hoping for a silent rendering of the novel, you would be disappointed. This film takes the broadest of brushes to the tale, utilizing only names and a large dog to connect this to Holmes' most famous adventure. Stapleton, the villain, disguises himself as Holmes (to get at Baskerville's inheritance), much to the annoyance of the real Holmes who reads about his exploits in the paper. What to do? Simple. Disguise himself as Stapleton to foil... himself?

OK, so it's not the greatest of plots but the execution is well done. There are some great flourishes, such as the ingenuous and forward-thinking method Holmes uses to summon Watson (it's like a toy my daughter has, a Lite Brite), who trundles into a secret elevator like it's Wayne Manor. Holmes stops a bomb by casually shooting its fuse off; there are trapdoors and men hiding in suits of armor - none of it makes a lot of sense but at a little over an hour long it doesn't matter. The hound is largely irrelevant, and it's obviously a big, friendly Great Dane greatly enjoying itself and not in the least bit interested in scaring anyone.

This film, once thought lost, was reconstructed then tinted with new intertitles created. I'm not a fan of tinting, even if it is historically accurate to the original, as this was supposed to be. The colors are garish (particularly the yellow-golds and greens) and change frequently throughout the scenes. The intertitles font also looks too modern to my eyes. According to the booklet accompanying the blu-ray, this film was so successful that it spawned three sequels (The Hound of the Baskervilles 2: The Isolated House, THotB 3: The Sinister Room & THotB 4: The Legend of the Baskerville Hound). Hollywood, eat your heart out!
 
BONUS: 'Der Hund von Baskerville' [1929]

The main feature on the Flicker Alley blu-ray is this restored, lost version, pieced together via on old Polish print stored in a priest's basement and a dilapidated 9.5mm Russian print. Two of the reels are still missing, and the story is continued via stills and intertitles.

First off, this film looks amazing, considering what they had to work with. The 9.5mm parts stand out and are obviously the weakest link here, but they are usually brief. In terms of plot, this is much closer to the original story, with Watson being the main character for the first half of the film. George Seroff as Watson foreshadows Nigel Bruce's portrayal a decade later; he's a bit of an idiot and looks like British comedian Harry Enfield, which doesn't help. Carlyle Blackwell plays Holmes as a tad cocky but otherwise is up for the job.

The direction is top-notch. Lighting is used to great effect and the camera moves all over the place - close-ups, high angles, dolly shots, etc. The film is again a little over an hour long, but all the major plot points are covered, from the escaped convict, the secretive staff, Laura Lyons involvement, Holmes secret getaway and the dastardly Stapleton. The ending gets the largest revision - Holmes finds himself trapped in a secret tunnel slowly filling with mud, for some reason, more akin to a cliffhanger serial. No matter, it somehow fits. It isn't clearly shown how Holmes deduces Stapleton's connection to the Baskervilles, leaving the climax a bit rushed, but overall this is a highly enjoyable adaptation. Fans of silent film and/or Holmes should definitely pick this up.
 
'The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires' [1974]

Hammer's string of Dracula films ends with a chop and a whimper, with Cushing's Van Helsing being dropped into early 1900s China to defeat his old nemesis.

The film begins in 1804, with the old Count being disturbed from his slumber by a Chinese monk. There is immediate disappointment when you realise that Lee's famous role has been taken over by John Forbes-Robertson instead, and relief when it becomes clear we probably won't see him again much more anyway. Dracula takes the form of the monk and returns to China to oversee the clan of 7 Golden Vampires and restore their power. Or something.

This seemed like such a crazy idea for a film that I have been looking forward to it for weeks. Cushing and China and martial arts - on paper, it's exactly the kind of bonkers film I'd love. As is much the case, the anticipation was better than the realisation. Yes, it's pretty bonkers, just not of the interesting kind.

The 7 Golden Vampires (reduced fairly swiftly to 6) are a mute, shabby-looking lot with what looked like rough paper mache masks for faces. Like European vampires, the Asian variety can be dispatched with something pointy in their heart, though most seem to be highly combustible and end their otherwise immortal days that way. They abhor anything holy and so, being China, that means the Buddha. It's an interesting twist that really should have been used more somehow.

Acting honors go to Cushing, of course, who is still giving it his all, although you can't help feeling a bit embarrassed for him by the end when how bad this film is begins to sink in. David Chiang is very good as the Chinese lead, and Julie Ege deserved more from this film, playing a surprisingly spunky damsel. Filmed entirely on location in Hong Kong, according to the credits, the sets look great and the martial arts sequences have the frenetic style you would expect. But even they are not enough to enliven this film. The showdown with Dracula is the quickest and lamest battle of any of their previous encounters, leading to an abrupt ending.

As a vampire film, it's another novelty to go along with 'Billy the Kid versus Dracula'. Terrible? Not quite. Unusual? Sure. As they say, if you like this kind of thing, then this is the kind of thing you'll like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom