Were they even trying


the question explains it all

reply

I do believe that they were. Granted, the story is very corny, and some parts of the dialouge are horrid, but all in all the movie lives up to the typical mantra that all B-movies are subjected to in that it was "so bad it was good."

reply

Well it was made in 8 days , and directed by William (one shot)Beaudine.
Other good parts , couldnt get flashlight matched with torch in cave.

reply

Regrettably, neither this film nor JESSE JAMES MEETS FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER (or grand-daughter) falls into the "so bad it's fun and can be watched over and over again" category - it's just plain laughably bad, though it's nice to see Virginia Christine and Marjorie Bennett. Poor John Carradine - he looked a mess and way older than he was - and talk about a hammy performance! He chewed the scenery so much I'm surprised there was a set left standing. The "night-time" shots were even more obviously shot in daylight than Universal's MUMMY movies from the 1940s (in which both Carradine and Christine made memorable appearances), so that Drac appeared to be walking around in broad daylight with no ill effects.

"I don't use a pen: I write with a goose quill dipped in venom!"---W. Lydecker

reply

not much but there's really an idea to devellop, dracula in a western is a nice idea, a remake is needed

reply

he could go after Calamity Jane in the remake.

reply

no, he's a political vampire, he would be on the mexicans side

reply

Dracula and Zapata.

reply

Dracula Vs Clint Eastwood
Dracula VS John Wayne
Dracula VS Lee Van Cleef

reply

Now that Anne Rice has gone back to the Church there's nobody to write the screenplay.

reply

John Carradine was definitely in there flailing away at the dragon of low budget inanities!

reply