Watch Dracula A.D. 1972 For Free

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

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 ****

I actually like this movie. It's a refreshing change in the Lee Dracula Hammer series. It is very interesting to see Lee's Dracula set in a modern time era (1972) -- but that didn't seem to phase Dracula at all.I enjoyed Johnny Alucard and his friends resurrecting Dracula and what happens to them afterwards. This part of the story really is captivating - just as much as Dracula.So pleased that Peter Cushing is back as Prof. Abraham van Helsing, the descendant of Dr. Lawrence van Helsing. Prof. Helsing is on the trail of the resurrected Dracula as his ancestor before him. (See: Dracula aka Horror of Dracula 1958).It's always a great film when Cushing and Lee are together - their presence alone will make any drab film worthwhile. Once again, the duo does not disappoint in Dracula A.D. 1972.8.5/10

Considering that this is generally regarded as the worst of the Hammer "Dracula" films and one of the worst Hammer horror films, my hopes were not high. However, I bloody loved it. Yes, it may not be the cleverest or the deepest of the films and parts of it - most of the "modern" dialogue and Alucard's death scene particularly - are rather cringeworthy but it's outrageous fun! Other parts - such as the resurrection scene and the line "By the 6,000 terrors of Hell, I baptise thee!" - are just so wonderfully silly and bizarre that I couldn't help but love it. It's just so much fun. Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are as excellent as ever and the film has a very strong supporting cast overall. I criticised "Scars of Dracula" for being basically a hodge-podge of the best bits from the first five films. I think that Hammer might have realised that they'd tapped out the Gothic elements as regards the Dracula films and the series needed a change of pace by moving it into the present day. I wonder if that decision was inspired by "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" doing the same for its film series the previous year.

England's Hammer Studios did 9 Dracula or vampire films from 1958-1974:1. Horror of Dracula (1958); 2. Brides of Dracula (1960); 3. Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966); 4. Dracula has Risen from the Grave (1968); 5. Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970); 6. Scars of Dracula (1970); 7. Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972); 8. The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973); and 9. The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974).Christopher Lee plays the Count in all but "The Brides of Dracula" and "The Legend 7 Golden Vampires." Peter Cushing also stars in four entries as Van Helsing.By the time of the seventh film the creative well was apparently running dry and Hammer decided to spice up the series by bringing the Count to present-day London (1972, of course), which was Hammer's response to other successful vampire films at the time taking place in the modern day, such as "The Night Stalker," "Blacula" and "Count Yorga." The story revolves around a group of hip counter-culture youths performing a black mass in an abandoned church for kicks (although the ringleader takes it serious) and they revive the blood-sucking prince of darkness. Havok ensues.Peter Cushing appears as Van Helsing's descendant. Christopher Neame plays the nutjob who performs the black mass with utter relish. Also on hand are the stunning beauties Stephanie Beacham and Caroline Munro. Stephanie plays Van Helsing's daughter and Caroline has a small but significant role. There are a couple of other early-70s hippie babes as well.The first half of the film borrows heavily from the previous "Taste the Blood of Dracula" in that the Count is resurrected in roughly the same manner, although "Taste" is more effective. Which isn't to say that "Dracula A.D. 1972" isn't a decent entry in the series, albeit bizarre. The main problem with the film is that the story doesn't seem to know what to do once Dracula is resurrected. For instance, Cushing's final battle with the Count is fairly lame for various reasons (I don't want to give anything away), not to mention Lee only appears for about 10 minute in the entire film, which is usual for the series, of course.Another problem is the score. It screams "early 70s" in a bad way, but doesn't mesh with what is essentially a serious horror flick. Of course some would cite that as part of its charm. I said "serious horror flick, by the way, because this is not a goofy or campy flick despite the colorful hippie elements and lousy score.What works best is that it's a great period piece. You'll get a groovy glimpse of England's counter-culture, including the hippie girls and a live performance by the band Stoneground (who didn't go anywhere beyond this movie, likely because their sound & style was already passe by 1972). So, the first half is fun and compelling, whereas the second half just sort of goes through the motions and peters out.BOTTOM LINE: "Dracula A.D. 1972" is hard to rate because, despite the mediocre-ness of the story's second half, the film is a fun experience with numerous highlights. Hence, as a Dracula story I give it a C+, but for entertainment value I give it a solid B or B+.The film runs 96 minutes and was shot in England.GRADE: B-