Horror Classics: Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)

The dark prince has been dominating the Horror Classics series lately, hasn't he? So far, we've looked at eight films and there are plenty more to come. That's what happens when you're a horror icon, I guess. So, which Dracula film are we looking at this time? Well, we're still doing the Hammer series and this time we're looking at the fifth entry in their run of Dracula films.

Taste the Blood of Dracula had a...rough production behind the scenes. Christopher Lee was frustrated with Dracula, he wanted to do other things and Hammer kept dragging him back into the proverbial coffin. We discussed that last time, of course.

To recap briefly, James Carreras would guilt-trip Lee into taking the role by telling him that if he didn't do it, then a lot of his friends would be out of work.

Still, it was hard work getting Lee to take on the Dracula mantle again, so Hammer made a pretty drastic decision. They were going to make a Dracula film without Dracula. With that in mind, and considering the uncertainty of Christopher Lee's return, Taste the Blood of Dracula was originally written without an appearance by Dracula.

Hammer was planning to replace Dracula with a new character - Lord Courtley, played by Ralph Bates. Unfortunately, the American backers (Warner Bros.) refused to release the film without Dracula's appearance. Of course, that meant Hammer had to talk Lee into reprising the role...again.

The film released on May 7, 1970 and was seemingly met with a mixed reception. Some people liked the atmosphere and praised Christopher Lee's performance. Others noted that it didn't do much to switch up the formula and make things interesting. Still, it did well enough that the studio continued the series...for better and worse but we'll get to that.

The Story isn't very "Dracula"

Our story picks up where the previous film left off, with a passing traveller witnessing the death of Dracula. The traveller collects the count's powdered blood, cloak, and ring before taking off for home. From there we jump forward, presumably a few months or a few years, and meet three gentlemen: William Hargood, Samuel Paxton, and Jonathon Secker.

These men pose as charitable pillars of their community by day, and visit their town's seedy brothels at night. They've been doing this for a while though and have gotten bored. When Lord Courtley, a known Satanist and practitioner of black magic, approaches with an offer for something more exciting, the three men jump at the opportunity. They set off and purchase Dracula's gear and powdered blood before meeting Courtley at an old church for the promised excitement.

You can probably guess what the excitement is, and yes, it goes about as poorly as one can expect. In the end, the three men end up beating Courtley to death and have to spend the rest of the film trying to live a normal life - as if nothing happened. Of course, Dracula resurrects from his servant's remains and vows vengeance against the three men.

What I Liked

The performances were pretty good, but I think that's something to be expected with a lot of Hammer's stuff. Christopher Lee's voice is, as always, freaking nerve-wrecking. Geoffrey Keene is great as the abusive, drunken Hargood. He's the guy that you hate from the get-go and that's the whole point.

The costumes are quite nice to look at and James Bernard's music is always nice to hear.

What I didn't Like

Okay, so the original idea was that Ralph Bates would be the vampire and would seek revenge on the three men who beat him to death. That idea, as we said before, was scrapped because the US distributors refused to release the film without Dracula's appearance. I think this was a very stupid thing to do, that original idea would've made much more sense.

Unfortunately, the changes that the American distributors demanded made no sense at all. Now, Courtley's death is the catalyst for the Count's resurrection. Where that whole idea falls apart is that Dracula's motivation makes no sense. He's looking for revenge against the three men who killed his servant. Why should he care about a servant? He's Dracula, he can get a new servant! On a somewhat related note, shouldn't he be thanking them? They provided the catalyst for his resurrection.

Dracula also just doesn't seem like Dracula, he seems more like a stereotypical slasher movie villain than a vampire overlord. He barely says a word - which was somewhat typical of Lee at the time - and unfortunately his few appearances are somewhat lack-luster as a result. It also doesn't help that the pacing is so slow!

Final Thoughts: Definitely a Mixed Bag

Ultimately, this film is a mixed bag of sorts. Some of it works really well, but a lot of it doesn't make sense and, as I've already said, the film is slow. It doesn't really step on the gas at any particular point after the resurrection ritual at the beginning of the film.

It's not necessarily a bad film per-se, but it's definitely not an easy watch. In the end, I say watch it for yourself and draw your own conclusions, my verdict is that it's worth watching just for the sake of enjoying the Hammer visuals and music.