joker-scar Review of Dracula A.D. 1972

Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)

Blood gets 9, story gets 8, sex 6... music 0

[8/10 · 17 December 2018]

Let me start off by saying that I never read other reviews before writing my own so if I repeat some info that others have stated, please forgive. This film has always been on my bucket list since I was a kid. I still have the same big Horror movie book filled with lots of stills/posters from this genre and while I have always had copies of the first 3 films of this Hammer series, I always feared that the remaining ones became lower in quality and with less scenes of Dracula so watching them did not became a priority. Thirty years later I finally sit down and watch this one and while I wasn't wrong in my thinking in some ways; it had cut corners and saved money by staging the story in modern London rather than find or build 19th century sets/locations but it was for the most part a pretty good story. It was well directed and shot, albeit some sloppy moments here and there. It also helped watching a beautiful full 1080 restoration rather than some old scratchy and faded TV print from the 1980's. Seeing glimpses into early 1970's London was a kick in itself as it is with any film shot in their own eras. The sexual suggestiveness is what one would expect but I was disappointed they didn't go a little step farther, after all it was the liberated 70's ha ha ha. Sorry but men do represent half the audience and this series was kicked off and became successful in some part by dripping Technicolor and the low cut 19th century Bavarian blouses worn by the female vampires. The acting for the most part was pretty good all around, the only real false moment was when Gaynor first sees Dracula; her reactions are pretty low key for seeing the Prince of Darkness for the first time in a broken down church setting. There are some other poorly directed moments like when Johnny ends up in his own bathroom in agony from the sun bursts via Van Helsing and a handy mirror, he conveniently pulls the draping covering the ceiling sunroof and conveniently hits the water tap as he conveniently falls into the tub conveniently disposing him. Come on, man, give-me-a-break! That could have been staged way better...did you have to strike the set before noon so you shot it super quick? However the worst offender is the musical score. It tries way too hard to be hip and of the time which of course has the exact opposite effect and becomes a silly and laughable soundtrack counteracting a really solid movie of its genre. Too bad. I can't say but I speculate it was corny with audiences at the time of original release as well. Perhaps a great deal of fans may like this type of cheese, the "its-so-bad-its-good" argument which is totally subjective anyway. Any-who because of that kitschy factor added throughout the film, it lost the suspenseful grip of the storyline rather than using it sparingly in certain scenes where it would have been effective with all the kitschy touches and added that good cheese factor. This "modern" pop score was also used instead of using a more traditional and effective haunting theme when Dracula or any hints of vampirism is being presented. The producers missed a chance to take a few extra moments in the huddle to really make a solid film instead of "just" churning out a quick money making sequel. This pop score also had an overly long intro in the second main scene of the film in the rich guys house with a live band playing in front of a stiff-as-statue geriatric crowd of 1 per centers. This scene, unlike the rest of the film which flows at a pretty steady pace, lumbers along as the band plays on, and on and on. I suspect the producers wanted to showcase them and/or it was a prerequisite for the band to be in the film. Whatever, it should have been cut down by 60% and would have made the point just the same.