Blood of Dracula's Castle (1969)
** (out of 4)
Let me start off by saying the horror dork inside of me almost shed a tear when I received this screener and realized that this Al Adamson film was included. Back when I was around ten or so I had the pleasure of my dad buying me Adamson's Blood of Ghastly Horror and Dracula vs. Frankenstein, both which lived up to their reputation of being among the worst films ever made. However, they fell into that "so bad they're good" category so I set out to locate this flick. After five years of searching I finally found a copy at a mom and pop store and they took pity on me and gave me the tape for free. Went on, put it in the VCR, the film started and smoke came from my VCR, which was eating my tape. My young heart was broken but I kept on until nearly ten years later when the postman dropped this disc off at my house.
Okay, enough dork talk and on to the movie .
A young couple inherits an old castle and to their shock they soon learn that Count Dracula and his wife are living there. With the assistance of a hunchback and caretaker (John Carradine), the Count and his wife keep the basement full of women so that the blood supply is never low. The young couple wants them out of the castle but Dracula will do whatever it takes to remain there even if it means making the new couple partners.
After a while I soon realized that Blood of Dracula's Castle is to Al Adamson what Jail Bait was to Ed Wood and that is the director's best made film, which means we aren't going to get as many laughs that we might expect. I was also disappointed to see John Carradine wasn't making a return to Dracula but even with that the film is campy enough to enjoy on many levels but just don't expect the goodness of say Dracula vs. Frankenstein.
The biggest flaw with the film is that Dracula and his wife just aren't very interesting and they're overshadowed by Carradine, the hunchback assistant and the werewolf, who never actually transforms. Perhaps Adamson was wanting to make a straight and serious film and while doing that, this one here comes off a bit boring and never reaches its potential of becoming an outrageously funny film. The silly music score and wooden acting brings some charm and minor laughs as done Carradine who chews up the scenery like he always does. But again, what in the hell was Adamson thinking not using the great as Dracula? It's also interesting to note that the cinematographer was Laszlo Kovacs who would later go on to do Easy Rider, Targets, Paper Moon, Shampoo and more recently doing a couple Sandra Bullock films.
** (out of 4)
Let me start off by saying the horror dork inside of me almost shed a tear when I received this screener and realized that this Al Adamson film was included. Back when I was around ten or so I had the pleasure of my dad buying me Adamson's Blood of Ghastly Horror and Dracula vs. Frankenstein, both which lived up to their reputation of being among the worst films ever made. However, they fell into that "so bad they're good" category so I set out to locate this flick. After five years of searching I finally found a copy at a mom and pop store and they took pity on me and gave me the tape for free. Went on, put it in the VCR, the film started and smoke came from my VCR, which was eating my tape. My young heart was broken but I kept on until nearly ten years later when the postman dropped this disc off at my house.
Okay, enough dork talk and on to the movie .
A young couple inherits an old castle and to their shock they soon learn that Count Dracula and his wife are living there. With the assistance of a hunchback and caretaker (John Carradine), the Count and his wife keep the basement full of women so that the blood supply is never low. The young couple wants them out of the castle but Dracula will do whatever it takes to remain there even if it means making the new couple partners.
After a while I soon realized that Blood of Dracula's Castle is to Al Adamson what Jail Bait was to Ed Wood and that is the director's best made film, which means we aren't going to get as many laughs that we might expect. I was also disappointed to see John Carradine wasn't making a return to Dracula but even with that the film is campy enough to enjoy on many levels but just don't expect the goodness of say Dracula vs. Frankenstein.
The biggest flaw with the film is that Dracula and his wife just aren't very interesting and they're overshadowed by Carradine, the hunchback assistant and the werewolf, who never actually transforms. Perhaps Adamson was wanting to make a straight and serious film and while doing that, this one here comes off a bit boring and never reaches its potential of becoming an outrageously funny film. The silly music score and wooden acting brings some charm and minor laughs as done Carradine who chews up the scenery like he always does. But again, what in the hell was Adamson thinking not using the great as Dracula? It's also interesting to note that the cinematographer was Laszlo Kovacs who would later go on to do Easy Rider, Targets, Paper Moon, Shampoo and more recently doing a couple Sandra Bullock films.