Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970) User Reviews

Memorable scenes

[rams_lakers · 7/10 · 5 August 2004]

This was the only Dracula/Lee movie that I saw on the huge theater screen and it was pretty cool. My mom would never take me to these things so I had my dad drop me and my friend off, then pick us up later. It was a double feature along with Trog. The theater was not packed, but it had been playing for at least a week. Now some kids are going to rate this lower because they've all seen much bloodier and scarier stuff. No kidding, really????? When this came out it was very good in terms of gore and horror.

My most memorable scene was when the hardened dust broke in half and Dracula's face filled the screen with those red eyes. I just purchased the DVD and it includes some restored footage of the brothel T&A and during each victim's death they look up at the standing figure of Dracula. The first victim's shovel-gashed face was restored on the DVD, the second victim's bloody face and the third victim too. This version was never released in the US. It would have been rated R, instead it was GP (before they called it PG).

I think it's bull for another commenter to say it's obvious that Dracula was never intended to be in this. No, what is obvious is that a certain commenter read some of these movie facts before claiming they "knew all along." Yeah, they were going to have Bates as Dracula, thank god that fell through. Lee was talked into it again. They had to rewrite it to insert Dracula in there, and his presence was awesome though some of his lines were bad. Hmmm, Dracula can count to 3. I'll give this one 7 stars. The DVD quality is spectacular.

The sexy followup to Dracula HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 16 January 2008]

This is a very unusual Hammer horror film in that it picks up exactly where the last one left off--providing some nice continuity. It seems that after Drac was impaled in the last film, his body disintegrated and all that was left was his powdered blood. A REALLY STUPID passerby decided to scoop up the blood and later sells it--followed by the not unexpected resurrection of Dracula once again!! Despite this weird reincarnation, the movie does offer some nice innovations and some that weren't all that necessary. Dracula was revived by a Devil worshiper and three perverts. Just before Dracula revives, the three perverts get cold feet and kick the Devil worshiper to death. In an odd display of loyalty, Dracula decides to take revenge on the three man and their families because a sweet old Devil lover was needlessly killed! In most Dracula films his sidekicks are killed at the slightest whim by the vampire without a second thought. I really suspected that Christopher Lee's character was just looking for an excuse to shed some more innocent blood--and how he had them killed was pretty cool and unusual. However, were also some bad changes. Since the film came out in 1970 and the morals of the world were changing, the producer decided to "sex up the series" by adding a brothel scene and throwing in some gratuitous nudity. The entire scene could have remained and been just as effective without the boobies, but because of this some parents might want to think twice about allowing junior to watch this film. Of course, with all the killing and bleeding, this isn't exactly a kids' film anyway!! Overall, a very watchable addition to the franchise and a nice followup to "Dracula Has Risen From The Grave".

A couple final notes--when a dead woman is removed from the lake, the man who retrieved the body accidentally tripped a bit--and you can see the "dead lady" move her arm instinctively in response!! I'm amazed they didn't catch this or re-shoot the scene. Also, one of the three men marked for revenge is played by Peter Sallis (the voice of Wallace from "Wallace and Grommit"). It's interesting to see this man play a rather slimy part.

Reasonable latter-day Hammer.

[lost-in-limbo · 7/10 · 10 July 2005]

Three wealthy gentlemen go out during one night of the month for pleasure seeking (supposedly for charity the wives think) and are becoming incredibly bored in what they do in that time, as they think that they've done everything. That's until they meet Lord Courtley (Ralph Bates) who claims he can give them power if they join him in some ritual to recreate his dead master, but first they have to buy a certain item off a shopkeeper to perform this task. So, with the help of Dracula's servant Lord Courtley they meet in a rundown chapel to revive Dracula (Christopher Lee) from his ashes, but they chicken out of fulfilling their end of the bargain and to keep this quiet they kill the servant. Thinking that it will just blow over, but there wrong as now Dracula has been revived through his servants' corpse and he plans to take vengeance on those three for killing his servant.

Decent latter-day hammer effort that has very good production valves and some solid performances on show. The polished Victorian sets standout with sharp detail and great use of shadowy and dim lighting for its Gothic atmosphere. Though, the atmosphere was good it wasn't that grand in stature and it's not terribly suspenseful as we've seen it all before. The overall feel might come across a rather glum, but it has its lively parts and an undertone of pervading sexuality and flesh for some added boost. The compellingly clever plot is well thought out to begin with (great intro) and there are some unpredictable moments, but then it does seem to follow the usual pattern of the earlier Hammer Dracula's and ends rather unconvincingly after it looked like there was going to be an exciting finale. After a promising first half it does kind of drag in parts after the resurrection of Dracula and comes up with an uninspiring romance tale. The script is utter ham and quite stilted. Christopher Lee as Dracula doesn't really get that much too do, but whenever on screen his presence or quick flashes has some hypnotic pull making you wish he had more screen time. Most of the time his sneaking about in the background, counting down his victims in a husky voice (1,2 & 3) and giving orders to others (their children) to do his dirty work. Most of the performances were good (some deadpan) from the likes of Geoffrey Keen, Peter Sallis and John Carson as the three gentlemen and Ralph Bates as Lord Courtley is incredibly over-the-top, but seemed well suited for it. The ladies of the film or you should say Dracula's victims Isla Blair and the ravishing Linda Hayden give fair performances and some added eye-candy. The direction by Peter Sasdy is top-notch in delivery and he adds in some great sequences. The fine camera-work had sprawling crane and ground shots. While not forgetting the look into my eyes camera zooms too. Even the make-up and gore effects (nice flowing rich blood) were pretty well conceived and didn't come across as too wretched. Another highlight of the film would have to be piercing, but also moody music score.

Anyway maybe the formula was starting to wear thin in this film? Well, it does rehash certain elements and the usual clichés follow, but what do you expect from these campy hammer films. Its their trademark and has been a winning formula for them.

A mildly enjoyable hammer film, even if it's by the books.

Another Great Vampire Movie from Hammer

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 3 May 2015]

William Hargood (Geoffrey Keen), Samuel Paxton (Peter Sallis) and Jonathon Secker (John Carson) are respectable gentlemen in the community and they are devoted to charitable work. But they are actually a trio of hypocrites that go to brothels instead of charity. One night, they meet the arrogant Lord Courtley (Ralph Bates) in the brothel and they decide to invite him for a drink. They tell that they have boring lives and are looking for excitement. Courtley promises him pleasure if they make a pact with the devil and asks them to buy some Dracula's belongings from the merchant Weller (Roy Kinnear), including dried blood. They go to a derelict church where Courtley asks them to drink the blood of Dracula. They refuse to drink but Courtley drinks and falls on the ground, and Hargood, Paxton and Secker beat him to death. They leave the church and Courtley's body transforms in Dracula (Christopher Lee) that promises to kill them. Meanwhile Hargood has a friction with his daughter Alice (Linda Hayden) because she is in love with Paxton's son Paul (Anthony Corlan). When she leaves home, Dracula meets her and controls her mind. What will happen to Alice?

"Taste the Blood of Dracula" is another great vampire movie from Hammer. The story is very conventional as usual, with Christopher Lee in the role of Dracula and the vampire afraid of crosses and holy water. The explanation for Dracula's appearance is confused but his revenge using the sons and daughters of the men that killed his servant is dark. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): Not available on DVD or Blu-Ray

Note: On 03 September 2017 I saw this film again.

Another solidly entertaining Hammer Dracula pic.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 11 March 2009]

A trio of seemingly respectable, well-to-do Victorian gentlemen (played by Geoffrey Keen, Jonathen Secker, and Peter 'more cheese, Gromit?' Sallis) form a secret club in order to experience the wildest thrills that life has to offer. However, their limited imaginations mean that they soon become bored, and so they decide to take their lead from disgraced aristocrat and practising Satanist Lord Courtley (a marvellously slimy Ralph Bates), who suggests that they attempt a ritual to bring the infamous Count Dracula back to life.

When the three men panic during the ceremony, and beat Courtley to death, they flee the scene, not realising that Count Dracula (Christopher Lee) has indeed returned from the dead, and now seeks retribution for the killing of his loyal acolyte.

Although Hammer's Dracula movies rarely strayed far from their well-worn formula—Dracula lives; Dracula kills; Dracula dies—their lush Gothic atmosphere, fine ensemble casts, and sumptuous cinematography usually meant that, even when the script was somewhat lacking, there was still plenty to enjoy. Such is the case with Taste The Blood Of Dracula, which features a so-so story and a surprisingly unremarkable turn from Lee (who is forced to deliver some particularly dodgy dialogue), but manages to keep fans entertained with some gloriously camp performances from the rest of the cast, some fine direction from Peter Sasdy, and loads of Hammer's trademark Gothic trappings.

Plus, this entry in the series also stars the gorgeous Linda Hayden—one of my favourite actresses from the late 60s/70s—whose presence makes it a must-see as far as I am concerned. Her transformation from wide eyed innocent to slutty vamp slave (with cleavage on display, naturally) is reason enough to seek this one out!

Surprisingly original!

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 13 June 2012]

It's funny how I really wasn't into this movie at first but still ended up really liking it!

Thing that makes this movie a bit unusual and different is that it's being a part of the Hammer studios Dracula series but it really doesn't feel or look like a Hammer movie at all! Director Peter Sasdy did an handful of movies for the Hammer studios but only in its later years and he never impressed with any. He obviously wasn't that accustomed to its approach and style of film-making, or perhaps he simply really preferred to do his own thing. But anyway, if you're really into Hammer films, just prepare yourself for something totally different. You might end up disliking it at first, just as I did but don't give up on it! It's really a worthwhile and original enough little horror movie. I can also honestly say that this was the best movie I had seen, that got directed by Peter Sasdy.

The movie and story all first starts out as something very simplistic and formulaic but as the movie goes along, you actually start to realize how great its premise is. It has a premise that really adds to the movie its tension and for once isn't all about Dracula and the horror that he does. It might very well be true that this movie would have a better reputation if it didn't featured the character of Dracula in it, since this movie really doesn't feel like a typical Dracula movie at all and its story and atmosphere perhaps called for something totally different, outside of the Dracula universe.

And as often is the case with these late Hammer Dracula movies, Dracula himself is hardly in it at all. It was because Christopher Lee got fed up with the role and was also afraid he was going to get typecast because of it, for the rest of his life. He still needed a paycheck, so he kept on playing the character for a couple of years, under the condition that his role got limited down and in some cases he doesn't even have any lines. In this movie he does still speak however and once more shows why he was such a great and charismatic Dracula at the time.

It's the more slower sort of horror movie, which doesn't really work out that great for the movie at first but about halfway through it picks up some more pace and things start to get far more interesting and original. It's then that the movie suddenly starts to take form and makes its intension clear. It also provides the movie with some really solid horror moments and the movie has a very constant horror like atmosphere to it as well, that really adds to the tension and mystery of the overall movie.

Once you start to realize that this isn't being your average formulaic and simplistic Dracula production, the movie becomes surprisingly good, effective and original to watch!

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A pretty decent entry in the anemic Hammer 'Dracula' series

[DarthVoorhees · 7/10 · 25 October 2013]

When one walks into a Hammer 'Dracula' film there has to be a realization that the titular monster will be all but reduced to nothing more than a glorified cameo in some areas. I can absolutely see and understand Lee's frustration with the character. Most of the entries in the series feel as though they were written without the Dracula character given concrete reasons to do or say anything. 'Taste the Blood of Dracula' is no exception to this rule. Lee's Dracula is nothing more than a plot piece with stirring dialogue like "The first...". Part of me thinks Hammer should be embarrassed for wasting a talent like Christopher Lee's time.

And yet 'Taste the Blood of Dracula' is one of the finest entries in the series. I dare say it's actually better than the 1958 original 'Horror of Dracula'. Why is that? Because even though Dracula is but a caricature, this film is filled with intriguing characters and an inspired plot which although not exploited to it's full potential plays with fresh ideas in a stale Dracula series that often didn't know what it wanted to do. Hammer had many strengths but developing characters was not one of them. If they didn't have talents like Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing in their roles I think the studio would failed to be remembered or endeared as much as it is. Hammer is famous for creating wooden heroes to combat their monsters. 'Taste the Blood of Dracula' does something inspired. It populates it's film not just with the Count and a wooden hero but also a cast of sinners.

I get behind this inspired idea immediately. The thought of these old perverts dabbling in Satanism for erotic thrills is one of the most original horror plots of this time period. It plays exactly into Hammer's strengths of not so subtly teasing the juxtaposition of sex and horror. If anything I wish the film fell into the last cycle of Hammer films and had the hardcore exploitation aspects of 'Dracula AD 1972' and 'Satanic Rites'. What draws me to Hammer films are these kind of characters with dark secrets. I think that's why Peter Cushing's Frankenstein is still so endearing. These three old perverts are the perfect critique and parody of the kind of uptight British culture that these Hammer films were so perfect at rebelling against. I love the fact that Lee's Dracula is not the one to kill these creeps but instead Dracula turns their children against them. This is fresh and inspired material that perfectly encapsulates what Hammer was.

The cast is damn good too and they turn in fine performances. Lee actually doesn't give the best performance in the film and he usually always does. I absolutely love Ralph Bates and think he is by far the most underrated Hammer performer. I sort of wish I could have seen the film as originally intended with Bates taking over the cloak as Lord Courtley. He has a mad fire and anger to his performance. He pretty blatantly chews the scenery in his black mass scene but it's so damn entertaining and sincere that I really loved it. Geoffrey Keen is also particularly good as William Hargood, the leader of this elderly perverts. He's sly and quiet in his delivery. He really embodies what one thinks a snake looks like. I would have wished he and Dracula had more of a confrontation. Unsurprisingly, our hero Paul and his beau Alice are the least interesting characters and get boring performances as well. Anthony Higgins is likable enough but the material is so boring and he just plays the straight laced hero as cut out as possible with no edge.

This Dracula film is one of the better Hammer entries because it actually has the guts to take some risks. I think despite Lee's reservations about the Dracula series being stale and predictable that he can be proud here. This film is a darker and more morbid experience inhabited with the devilish characters Hammer did so well. It is a sufficiently entertaining treat.

Lee's last good Dracula performance

[nvillesanti · 9/10 · 14 April 2008]

When I was a kid by the late 70s I had the chance to see on TV some of Hammer's horror flick from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. But I had developed a special king of passion for the Dracula series. I remember the foggy atmosphere, the old castles and the Gothic Victorian era. Hammer movies were really well done and very elegant. "Taste the Blood of Dracula" starts where "Dracula has raised from the Grave" ended, when traveling salesman by the name of Weller (played by Roy Kinnear) is pushed from the wagon he was traveling in. After a brief moment he gets his self together and hears a loud scream from deep in the forest. He goes and investigates and finds the Count impaled in a golden cross and while he sees in horror Dracula is disintegrated in a red powder like substance. Weller, quickly decides to take the powder with him and all of Dracula's belonging. Later we see a group of three English businessmen with their families in church but that's only a cover when the three Englishmen leave their families every Sunday night, apparently to help the poor and feed the hungry instead they seek pleasure to satisfied their personal desire by visiting a night club. While the three businessmen are having their usual fun they are interrupted by Lord Courtley (played by Ralph Bates) how is a black magic practitioner and invites the three businessmen to participate in a satanic ritual promising them that he will expand their pleasures. But first they must buy from Weller, Dracula's blood and artifacts for him to perform the ritual. First the businessmen hesitate but they are easily deceived by Lord Courtley and later they perform the ritual in an abandoned church. After Courtley drinks the blood he falls to the ground in pain and the businessmen in fear start to beat him up to death. After leaving the body of Courtley lifeless on the ground the body of Courtley transforms in the Count Dracula. After this Dracula promise the revenge of his servant (Courtley) by hypnotizing the daughters of the businessmen and making them murder their own fathers. Dracula is like a puppet master in this movie and his participation is more in the shadows but still has a good feel to it. The acting by the entire cast was superb, especially for Ralph Bates. The costumes, art direction, photography, and directing was one of the best in the Dracula series. I had the chance to buy this classic in 2004 on DVD and later the rest of the Hammer's Dracula series. But "Taste the Blood of Dracula" still my overall favorite. Atmosphere and the great performances makes this a must see. Unfortunately Taste the Blood of Dracula was (in my opinion) the last good Dracula of the series. After that they started to do Dracula more too present day and kind of lost its touch. If you are a Hammer fan and want to make your own Dracula movie marathon this movie should be in your collection.

Good Dracula Film...BUT not Great

[BaronBl00d · 7/10 · 28 December 2000]

The story concerns three middle-aged men seeking thrills, making a pact with a devil's disciple, backing out of that pact at the last moment, and then dying as well as their progeny for their lack of commitment. The story has some big holes, but is one of the better Dracula films in the Hammer series. You get what you generally can expect from Hammer: good character acting, lush cinematography, dutiful direction(ably done by Peter Sasdy), Christopher Lee(alas no Peter Cushing), beautiful young girls showing lots of cleavage, wonderful period costumes, and the film's shining grace is the score by James Hermann which is simply poetry put to music. Ralph Bates stands out as a Lord Courtly living a life of sin and debauchery. Good Hammer Fun!

Weakest of the Gothic Hammer Draculas wastes Christopher Lee

[kevinolzak · 5/10 · 20 October 2020]

1969's "Taste the Blood of Dracula" was intended to introduce Ralph Bates as the vampire's disciple Lord Courtley, with Christopher Lee occupied in Spain finishing Jesus Franco's "Count Dracula." Having come as close as possible to playing the character as conceived by Bram Stoker, he was naturally reluctant to essay his 4th performance in the role for an increasingly penny pinching Hammer Films, only relenting under pressure for American financing from Warner Brothers. The previous Freddie Francis outing, "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave," was the best of all the sequels, allowing plenty of hair raising moments for Lee to assert Dracula's power, in particular the spectacular and controversial act of removing a stake from his own heart because the hero is an atheist without spiritual beliefs. Here, even after a hasty rewrite by usual screenwriter Anthony Hinds (as John Elder), he is reduced to mere cameo status with truly no need to speak any lines at all, quite a comedown so far as his mere presence is concerned. A traveling salesman (Roy Kinnear) happens to see the Count perish on the giant cross from the previous film's gory climax, stealing the vampire's signet ring, cloak, clasp, and a sample of his blood before returning to his London shop, where Lord Courtley has found three suckers eager for more impressive kicks than a drug induced evening at the local brothel. Willingly paying an astronomical price for Dracula's possessions ("may the devil take good care of you"), Courtley sets everything up in a dilapidated church intending that all four of them ingest the blood of Dracula to ensure the master's revival, only for the others to pass up the gruesome sight and Courtley imbibing himself. Falling to the floor in agony, he's beaten and left for dead, slowly transforming into Dracula (finally arriving at the 44 minute mark), who curiously decides that the trio must die for what happened to his servant, an extremely petty and simple minded motive for the supposed lord of the undead, despite being present in an obviously decadent Victorian London. So wicked are the so called killers that they present themselves to high society as pillars of the community doing charity work on the side, their children becoming the instruments of their own demise. Linda Hayden as Alice makes a strong impression in just her second film role, the daughter of Geoffrey Keen's loathsome Hargood, a knowing smile as she wields a deadly spade against him to lethal effect, followed by Isla Blair as Lucy, daughter of Peter Sallis' Paxton, the first time that Lee actually bites the throat of a victim on screen (Paxton is the one getting staked for a change). John Carson's Secker is stabbed to death by his son, vampirized by Lucy mere moments before, but not before leaving a note for Anthony Corlan's Paul Paxton, informing him how to gain knowledge to destroy Dracula, later finding the discarded corpse of sister Lucy before engaging in final battle for sweetheart Alice's soul. Again, Hinds is able to build a nice preamble but everything falls apart once Dracula sets out to corrupt the children to atone for the sins of the fathers, apparently still good enough to require another ruined church for a similar ritual in "Dracula A. D. 1972." Many critics praise this entry for its excellent production values and fine cast, but without a strong Dracula to propel events Lee is left with top billing and a meager bit part; though most decry the follow up "Scars of Dracula" as the worst of the Gothic sequels at least there the actor enjoys his largest role in any Hammer entry, happily recreating some of the passages in Stoker's novel.

The last great Dracula movie?

[david-697 · 10/10 · 18 July 2004]

At one point this was planned as a `Dracula-free' Dracula movie (along the lines of `Brides Of Dracula' or `Kiss Of The Vampire'), fortunately the American backers had more sense and demanded the inclusion of Mr Lee. I say fortunately, as I think that `Taste The Blood Of Dracula' is Lee's second-best outing in the role (just behind the classic 1958 `Dracula').

Peter Sasdy is a highly imaginative, but sadly unappreciated director and he makes the most of a strong script. The cast is impressive, a strong mixture of established character actors (Keene, Carson, Sallis etc) and fresh faces (Hayden, Blair, and Bates) and there is no weak links. Hayden (an iconic figure in the early ‘seventies) and Blair in particular give memorable performances.

From the edgy, blackly comic pre-credit sequence on-wards, this movie rarely misses a step. The only exception being the climax, which seems to me to be more than slightly confusing and unclear. This however is just a minor grip, as this movie is in my opinion the last great Dracula movie (and head and shoulders above the previous film in this cycle, the very dull `Dracula has risen From The Grave') and a highpoint of late Hammer Horror.

So that's where the count from Seasme Street got his inspiration to count!

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 7/10 · 10 January 2004]

The dark horse of the sequels: Taste the Blood of Dracula. I don't know, the title alone is awesome, I also happened to really like this story. Once again Christopher Lee returns as Dracula, you could tell this time he was definitely not happy to reprise the role. Not that he doesn't give great chills, but he doesn't have many lines and what lines he does have usually consist of two words: "The fiiiiiirst…" "The secoooond"… "The Thiiiiiiird" "Lucy… Lucy!" "Alice… Alice", etc. What makes a sequel special is if the story doesn't copy typical formulas and if the characters are likable and relatable. The story while slow paced at times and has certain flaws is still very creepy. Originally due to Christopher's hatred of the sequels, they were going to have his servant take over the role of Dracula, but eventually Christopher did agree and he wants revenge over the men who beat his servant to death while resurrecting him. It's a great idea and the resurrection scene is very well done with chilling atmosphere and very good acting. Then Dracula being the total baddie that he is doesn't want to get his hands dirty, he gets the men's kids to do his revenge for him, I couldn't think of a more evil way to handle things and that makes not only for a darker sequel but one of the stronger in my opinion.

Three English gentlemen - Hargood, Paxton and Secker - have formed a circle ostensibly devoted to charitable work but in reality they indulge themselves in brothels. One night they are intrigued by a young man who bursts into the brothel. The gentlemen are informed that he is Courtley, who was disinherited for celebrating a Black Mass. Hoping for more intense pleasures, Hargood meets Courtley outside the brothel. The younger man takes the three to the Cafe Royal and promises them experiences they will never forget but insists that they come to see Weller and purchase from him Dracula's ring, cloak and dried-up blood. The three meet with Courtley at an abandoned Church for a ceremony during which he puts the dried blood into goblets and mixes it with drops of his own blood, telling the gentlemen to drink. As they refuse, he drinks the blood himself, screams and falls to the ground. As he grabs the gentlemen's legs, they kick and beat him with increasing vigour - not stopping until Courtley dies, at which they flee in disgust at what they have done. While the three return to their respective homes and get on with their lives, Courtley's body, left in the abandoned church, transforms into Dracula, who vows that those who have destroyed his servant will be destroyed.

There are flaws with the film, like why the daughter Alice is never made into a vampire. The count has several opportunities to bite her but never does, you could say that he wanted a servant for the day time but after his revenge is done, there was no reason. But the hero was her boyfriend, so he's gotta get something for going through all that trouble of defeating the count. Plus I do love how for once there is a girl that does stand up to the count, every girl is always thrown down by the count all shocked and wants to be taken back immediately, Alice actually says "you know what? Screw this, you can fight off your own crosses" and throws the cross at the count. There is another flaw where the son Jeremy is made into a vampire but was never staked or shown what happened to him, you could just assume he's wondering around in a circle around his father's house waiting for Dracula's next command. However, flaws set aside, I think this was still a very good sequel. There's nothing majorly wrong with the film that I think given the right chance, people would really enjoy Taste the Blood of Dracula as a film in itself.

7/10

More Style rather than Substance

[mord39 · 10 October 2000]

MORD39 RATING: **1/2 out of ****

This is a gorgeous-looking film to behold. It is absolutely glowing with Victorian richness and gothic beauty.

As for the story itself, it's another weak one. It starts out admirably with a group of thrill-seeking businessmen purchasing the powdered remains of Dracula and joining the eccentric Ralph Bates in an unholy ceremony wherein Dracula is revived via the death of his servant. When the resurrected Count angrily warns: "They have destroyed my servant...they shall be destroyed!" all credibility as to his motives go out the window; Dracula could not be renewed without his servant's death, so why the desire for revenge? Why does he even care about a peasant like that?

Dracula was not originally intended to be in the story, so he appears to be out of place. Chris Lee's screen time is again brief, and he's not given much to do except be the orchestrator for revenge as he makes the children of the businessmen kill their parents for him.

The film, as stated earlier, is beautiful to behold and still fun to watch despite the Dracula flaws described above. Lee kept vowing never to play the part again sequel after sequel, yet he still hung on for the next few.

Back From The Dead(Again!)

[AaronCapenBanner · 5/10 · 24 November 2013]

Peter Sasdy took a turn directing this fifth "Dracula" film in the Hammer series that sees Christopher Lee once again playing Count Dracula, who is revived by an evil disciple(played by Ralph Bates) who had lured three bored(and hypocritical) "proper" English Gentlemen, who bring disaster on themselves and their families as Dracula targets them for destruction by killing his servant, though a climatic confrontation in a church may bring him his final destruction... Clever(if contrived) opening ties in with the ending of the previous film before moving forward a few years. Christopher Lee is fine in a limited capacity, and though it is handsome looking, it is also too far-fetched to succeed, though does have a memorable finale. Series really should have ended here though(in a way, it did!)

Enjoyable if flawed entry in the Hammer Dracula series

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 20 June 2015]

Taste the Blood of Dracula is neither the best(Horror of Dracula) or worst(Satanic Rites of Dracula from what I recall, the film needs a re-watch though) of the Hammer Dracula series, for me it's somewhere in the middle as a flawed but very enjoyable film.

One of Taste the Blood of Dracula's biggest flaws is the ending, which is one of the series' most unimaginative and is far too protracted and drawn out, Dracula's demise is also too easy and the silliest of his demises in the series. The script is flat and far too talky, some of the talk not adding much, while Dracula's few lines of dialogue are rather ludicrous. While not as bad as in the films following it, the pacing in the first half is on the pedestrian side too.

However, the photography is incredibly stylish with lots of vibrant and creepy colour and use of camera that adds to the atmosphere. The sets and period detail are very evocative and splendidly Gothic, while the effects are decent(thankfully no laughably fake bats like there were in Scars of Dracula). The music thunders thrillingly, has a lot of personality, is orchestrated beautifully and cleverly and is deliciously spooky. It is a great score on its own and adds a lot to the film. Not all of the story works, but there are some cool death scenes, some chilling violence, gore that doesn't get too gratuitous and once the film does pick up there is a good deal of suspense and a real sense of horror and dread, something that Hammer excels in better than most horror films(before, during and now).

Taste the Blood of Dracula boasts some fine direction from Peter Sasdy, and as long as one doesn't expect any development the characters at least serve a point to the story and engage. The acting is good, with Ralph Bates making the most of his deliciously hammy and sinister character, Geoffrey Keen being appropriately stiff and shady and Linda Hayden is alluring and spunky. Anthony Higgins is very likable too, not the most well-developed of characters but one of the better-acted hero characters in the Hammer Dracula series. Christopher Lee does not have very much screen time and has to work with lines that are too few and pretty bad, meaning that he doesn't have a lot to do, but the suave and incredibly intimidating presence that he brings to Dracula really captivates so he is still memorable.

All in all, an enjoyable entry in the Hammer Dracula series, without being one of the series' best or worst. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Acceptable follow-up to Dracula series from Hammer production

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 1 June 2004]

This is a fine horror movie based on the character created by Bram Stoker , but it isn't as good as the precedent films . It is the fourth part of Dracula series , the first is ¨Horror of Dracula¨ by Terence Fisher , the second is ¨Dracula , prince of darkness¨ also by Fisher , the third ¨Brides of Dracula¨ by Fisher and being followed by ¨Dracula has risen from the grave¨ by Freddie Francis, continuing with two low budgeted , TV sequels , directed by Alan Gibson : ¨The satanic rites of Dracula¨ and ¨Dracula A.D. 72¨ , most of them starred by the great Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing .

The movie begins in a prologue with the deceased Dracula from previous film . After that , Dracula/Christopher Lee will be reborn by the magic of Ralph Bates , his disciple . But Bates is killed by a bunch of bourgeois people , three elderly distinguished gentlemen searching for some excitement in their boring lives and then Dracula will revenge using their daughters , Linda Hayden and Isa Blair , both of whom will attack their parents . Nice acting by Ralph Bates as Dracula's disciple ; this was Ralph Bates's first of five Hammer films the others were Horror of Frankenstein (1970) by Jimmy Sangster , Lust for a Vampire (1971) also by Jimmy Sangster , El Dr. Jekyll and sister Hyde (1971) by Roy W. Baker and Fear in the Night (1972) by Jimmy Sangster. The flick was originally not going to feature Dracula at all , due to Christopher Lee becoming increasingly reluctant to reprise the role and the producers not expecting to be able to convince him to play so . As the storyline was rewritten to include Dracula after the financers were ultimately able to hire Lee back to the personager after Warner-Seven Arts refused to back the picture without the actor's participation . In spite of it , Christopher Lee will follow playing Dracula role in Scars of Dracula (1970) by Roy Ward Baker , Dracula (1970) by Jess Frank , Dracula A.D. 1972 by Alan Bridges and a comedy titled Dracula and son (1976) . The final showdown between Dracula and the contenders is breathtaking . As always , Dracula will die until the next installment : ¨The scars of Dracula¨ directed by Roy Ward Baker.

Interesting and twisted screenplay by John Elder or Anthony Hinds . The cinematography by Arthur Grant is excellent , James Bernard musical score is creepy and spooky . This eerie film was alrightly directed by Peter Sasdy who also made other Hammer and terror films as ¨Countess Dracula¨ , ¨Hands of the Ripper¨, ¨Nothing But the Night¨, ¨I Don't Want to Be Born¨ , and "Island of the Ghouls". Rating : 6.5/10 . Passable and decent sequel that will appeal to Christopher Lee fans .

A Pretty Solid Vampire Film

[Uriah43 · 6/10 · 31 January 2017]

This movie begins essentially where its predecessor "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave" left off with Dracula (Christopher Lee) having been run through with a large crucifix and in the process of dying. It's at this time that a man named "Weller" (Roy Kinnear) comes along and takes what remains of a totally decomposed body--in particular his clothes and a vial of his blood. As it so happens, three men interested in adventure come upon a man named "Lord Courtney" (Ralph Bates) who is involved in black magic and Satanism. Intrigued at the prospect of a new diversion, they have supper with him and it is at this time that he convinces them to buy the relics from Weller with the secret intention of resurrecting "the Prince of Darkness". Unfortunately, something goes horribly wrong during this ritual and the three men kill Lord Courtney out of fear and then run off. Unknown to them, the evil forces at work had not yet completed and soon the soul of the vampire inhabits Lord Courtney's body and subsequently reconstitutes itself into Dracula's old image-and he vows vengeance upon those who killed his loyal servant. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film was every bit as good as its predecessor mainly because of the dark, gloomy atmosphere which dominated every scene. Of course, that shouldn't be too surprising because that is what most Hammer films are known for in the first place. In any case, this is a pretty solid vampire film and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.

Atmospheric Dracula entry with a sublime James Bernard score

[fertilecelluloid · 7/10 · 31 December 2005]

Atmospheric "Dracula" pic from director Peter Sasdy, who also helmed "Countess Dracula". This is a much better film than that and rates in the upper echelon of the series. The film's opening ten minutes -- a man thrown from a carriage discovers the Count in his death throes -- are pitch perfect. It is a creepy, beautifully realized opening that raises expectations. For the most part, the expectations are met. The basic story, involving a trio of pleasure seekers who accidentally raise the dead vampire with a little assistance from Lord Courtley (Ralph Bates), is nothing novel, but Sasdy's direction, Arthur Grant's cinematography, and Scott MacGregor's production design combine to produce one of the finest looking Hammer pics. Of special note is James Bernard's score. It is truly one of the most beautiful scores of any film, and the final fifteen minutes are beyond sublime. Although the film stumbles in the centre and doesn't permit Lee too much screen time, it is, nevertheless, a solid, sensual entry in the Dracula canon.

A Tasty Dracula Film

[Rainey-Dawn · 9/10 · 23 October 2015]

A very good follow up to "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968)"... "Taste the Blood" picks up exactly where "Risen" left off.

The merchant Weller has found the dried blood of Dracula and his friend Lord Courtley wants to bring back his master. They meet 3 gentlemen in a brothel that is bored with their lives and talks them into buying a few of Dracula's belongings. The men go to an abandoned church and turn it into the devil's sanctuary, preform a ritual that the 3 bored men refuses to finish... a refusal that leaves Dracula's servant Lord Courtley dead. When Dracula is resurrected he vows revenge on the 3 men that took the life of Courtley.

There is plenty of blood and gore in this film... it's not nearly as bloody and gory as today's films because the movie also has a very interesting story to tell and not a gore-fest! 9/10

Thrill-seeking Victorian gentlemen sorry they thought a black magic ritual would be fun

[mlraymond · 7/10 · 19 October 2006]

This film is so different from the late fifties to mid sixties style of Dracula films directed by Terence Fisher, it might have been made by another studio than Hammer. The grand, theatrical flair that Fisher brought to all his movies is missing, but instead we get a very believable set of characters amid some realistic surroundings. Some of the exterior shots are simply exquisite, and the interior of the abandoned church is a tremendously effective set. It's hard to explain just what makes it work so well, but the acting, editing and cinematography and music are all so perfectly brought together in the black mass scene that it is startlingly believable. Two of the three men with a shared guilty secret are played particularly well.John Carson as Jonathan Secker is so good, you wonder why he's never been seen in anything else. Geoffrey Keen carries most of the film as one of the most unlikable characters ever put on screen, and he does it so well that he never comes off as a cardboard villain, but a believable human being. His William Hargood ranges from stern and controlling with his daughter,to contemptuous of his friends, to near hysteria and binge drinking after the trio's search for perverse fun has ended in a man's death. It is a remarkable, though hateful characterization. Special mention must be made of two other players:Ralph Bates as the sneering, vain, upper class twit with a taste for the macabre, and Roy Kinnear as the Englishman who finds and then nervously keeps Count Dracula's relics for sale. Christopher Lee unfortunately has little to do but glare menacingly at other characters and utter dire pronouncements , but he is used effectively in scenes in which Dracula seems almost a liberator of the young people from their oppressive fathers. This film has a fascination all its own. The youthful cast are very appealing and the dialog is well thought out. This film might disappoint viewers expecting a more typical Terence Fisher Dracula movie than Peter Sasdy gives us, but it is a moody and effective Gothic piece well worth seeing by horror fans.

Flat and disappointing 5th Hammer Dracula film

[The Welsh Raging Bull · 10 April 2002]

It's a case of what might have been in this 5th Hammer Dracula outing - Vincent Price had been touted to play the role of Lord Courtley, but due to other commitments he couldn't oblige. Nevertheless, I doubt whether Vincent Price could have elevated this lame effort to anything more than watchable.

It is a well-documented fact also that Christopher Lee had "dug his heels in" with regards to playing Dracula and wasn't going to star in this film. The distributors weren't going to touch a Dracula film without Lee so it was only desperate grovelling which got him to appear. Sadly, this resulted in Dracula being awkwardly inserted into a script that had already been written.

This is patently obvious in the film as Dracula tends to pop out from the shadows at various intervals to oversee the revenge on those who killed his servant at a ritual. The idea of the children exacting justice on their own parents is decent enough, but I can't fathom out why Dracula's servant didn't just revive Dracula himself.

The only real redeeming features of this insubstantial encounter are the start - where Roy Kinnear is thrown out of a stagecoach and stumbles upon Dracula impaled on a cross (following on from "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave"; and the ending - where the director really excels in depicting Dracula's torment as he is overwhelmed in a church. Distinctly average entertainment at best though!

I say, taste the what?

[evilskip · 2/10 · 9 October 2000]

Three hypocrites are spoiled their evening of debauchery in a bordello by Lord Courtley.The three men see a kindred spirit in the young man.He offers them the supreme thrill.To sell their souls (in a sense) to Dracula.All they have to do is taste the blood of Dracula.

Needless to say it goes horribly wrong and the three men kill Courtley.When they leave Dracula assumes human form and swears revenge against them for killing his disciple.Dracula uses the men's children as instruments of revenge.

There is a lot wrong with this film. First the only way to bring Dracula back was via a sacrifice.So why the revenge?Ralph Bates chews the scenery as Courtly.Chris Lee is given very little to say or do as Dracula.We feel sympathetic for no one in this film.

Originally this was slated to be a Dracula film without Dracula.Unwisely Lee decided to come back to play Dracula again and was little more than an afterthought.By this time the series was running out of gas (although it would get much much worse)and everyone was going through the motions.

I really wish there would have been more screen time for Dracula in this film.As it is it is a real snoozer.

Good entry in Hammer series

[vtcavuoto · 8/10 · 13 August 2006]

I am really impressed by Hammer Studios' films, especially the sets and costumes. Every film I've seen has great set pieces and a rich, Gothic flair. "Taste the Blood of Dracula" isn't a great film from an acting standpoint but it does have a nice blend of action and thrills. Christopher Lee is once again menacing as Dracula.I liked the originality in this film as far as Dracula being resurrected. The plot is pretty simple: three prim and proper gentleman meet once a month to do "charity" work(you'll see what I mean when you watch the movie). They meet a young nobleman who is involved in satanism and the black arts. He encourages the three men to buy relics that include Dracula's cape,pendent,ring and a vial of his powdered blood. In an abandoned church, he cuts his wrist and the drops of his blood mixed with Dracula's powdered blood fills each of the men's chalices to the brim. Only the young nobleman drinks it and he then dies, only to turn into Dracula.This is a good film in the Dracula series. I would recommend it.

Worthwhile entry in the Hammer Dracula franchise

[Coventry · 7/10 · 16 November 2004]

The fifth episode in the legendary Dracula franchise is far from the best (the original is, of course) but it does prove that the Hammer studios never stopped being creative in their ideas. This is yet another entirely new variant on the classic tale of the blood sucking Count, in the same delicious Victorian setting. * * * small spoilers * * * Early in the film, we see how Dracula is dying and how his blood clots into some sort of powder. Cut to a small Victorian community where 3 prominent townsmen are searching for thrills and therefore join a diabolical Lord Courtley (Ralph Bates from 'Horror of Frankenstein') in a resurrection-rite in order to bring Dracula back. When Courtley (who's actually Dracula's servant) dies in the ritual, the count avenges him by seducing and abusing the townsmen daughters… * * * end spoilers * * * Settings and scenery are terrific, as usual in Hammer films, and I thought the story was well presented and a neat new addition to the cycle. The 'horror', however, is a bit tame and Dracula himself doesn't seem all that impressive anymore. He doesn't do much killing himself and it looks like it's becoming more and more easy to destroy him. Oh well, Christopher Lee is always worth checking out in this role, so who's complaining? 'Taste the Blood of Dracula' is imaginative entertainment and the criticism towards the hypocrite Victorian life-style is very efficient. Aside from Christopher Lee, this flick also has a decent supportive cast including Ralph Bates and – especially – Linda Hayden. If you were enchanted by her cherubic appearance in this film, make sure you check out 'Blood on Satan's Claw', in which she plays an evil character.

Middling fair Dracula fable

[McQualude · 5/10 · 10 February 2008]

Middling fair Dracula fable about an overbearing father whose secrets and iron grip on his family eventually lead to his downfall. The special effects are pretty bad even for an early seventies movie. The blood looks like Day-Glo red paint mixed with ketchup and there is no trademark effect of Dracula turning into a bat. Apparently at some point this movie was re-rated R. I had it mixed in with a bunch of old Hammer and Universal monster flicks, my daughter picked it and the family sat down to watch. The blood was no big deal since it looks faker than fake anyway but I was a little dismayed and my wife outraged when the screen was suddenly filled with some very voluptuous women dancing and shaking their very ample and naked bodies, my daughters just ignored it. Weathering that, there wasn't much else to warrant an R rating.