MovieChat Forums > The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1974) Discussion > Best Hammer Dracula after the first one ...

Best Hammer Dracula after the first one do you agree


I think this is the best Hammer Dracula since the first one for many reasons.

First of all it is not as unfaithful to Stokers character as everyone makes out, in fact I think its more faithful to Stokers character than others in the series are. The Dracula in Stokers novel is a powerful arrogant creature who has to be in a position of authority such as a count and unlike the Dracula of previous films in this series (Taste the Blood and Ad 72) is not content to skulk around an old abandoned church. He has to live in a big castle in both Transylvania and London and has to have his gypsy servants around him. Ask yourself is the D D Denham persona really such a stretch from him being a count. In both cases he is in a position of authority where no one can touch him and he has minions to carry out his tasks and cover his tracks, in the novel it's his gypsy body guards in the film its his agents.

Also as for the modern day setting, well funny thing is Stokers Dracula was set in modern day. Stoker set Dracula in the time he wrote it not 100 years in the past from when he wrote it so it is a modern day vampire story. That's actually one of the major themes of the story is that its about how an ancient evil creature like Dracula would survive in modern day and how he would use aspects of the modern world to his advantage like the British empire.

Stokers Dracula also plotted to take over the world just like this one. Okay it wasn't exactly like this one but still the reason Dracula hopes to travel to London is so that he can use British Empire to spread the cult of vampirism around the world like never before and eventually take it over. So it is still kind of a plot for world domination even if its not as over the top as this one. That's the type of thing Stokers Dracula would do he is power mad he wouldn't be content to just go after a few people like Lee's Dracula did in the previous films.

Finally not only is this film more like Stokers Dracula but I also feel it is more like the later vampire films and television series we see around us today. Think about it the plot of a vampire or supernatural creature in modern day wanting to bring about armaggeddon has been done millions of times in Buffy, Blade, True Blood and Supernatural. In Buffy, Angelus wants to suck the world into hell killing everything on it, The Master wants to open the hellmouth and bring on armageddon, Spike and Dru and Angelus want to resurrect the judge and have him burn humanity into nothingness.
Are any of those more ridiculous than Dracula's plan. Angelus would be killing off his food supply just like Dracula would be to his. So would the master by opening the hell mouth as the old ones who came through would most likely wipe out humanity and Spike and Dru would be too as the judge would burn every human being on the planet.
Angelus the master and Spike and Dru weren't even portrayed as suicidal either like Dracula was so there was less reason for them to wipe out humanity than there was for Draucla in this film.
In all three of the Blade movies the vampires try to bring on some form of appocalypse in Blade one you had Frost (who I might add had lots of human minions with guns like D D Denham) try to turn everybody into vampires, then in the second one you had the reapers who were going to sweep the earth and in the third one you had the vampire final solution.
In the latest series of Supernatural you had Dick Roman a businessman who was really a monster trying to bring about an appocalypse through a kind of plague that would wipe out most people, sound familiar? They even had a plot like this in an earlier supernatural where a Demon who was the head of a company under Lucifers orders planned to spread an plague that would wipe out most of humanity.

In these respects I feel Satanic Rites is more ahead of its time than other Hammer Dracula's are. It could be an episode of Buffy or Supernatural thrity years before they were made.

reply

I wouldn't say it's the best do I do believe it is a very good, well made horror movie that doesn't get anywhere near the recognition it deserves.

Death lives in the Vault of Horror!

reply

While I couldn't in all honesty agree that SROD is the second best of Hammer's Dracula movies ( I like "Dracula Prince of Darkness" and "Dracula Has Risen From The Grave" better ), I do concur that it is underrated .It is far superior to it's predecessor "Dracula A.D. 1972 " ( except for campy fun !),and the downright boring ,"Taste the Blood of Dracula" .

There is a fascinating central concept here that is not fully realised. I find the idea of the Count as the Anti-Christ very intriguing and a logical progression of the Dracula myth. Sadly, the notion of Dracula tricking four members of the Establishment into being agents of his "own created Apocalypse" is not developed in the interesting manner it could have been. This is largely down to an apparent wish to fuse Hammer's traditional horror brand with the kind of thriller elements that were popular on TV at that time. There was a similar missed opportunity to do something excitingly different with "The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires".

Gordon P. Clarkson

reply

It's not as good as the first two sequels, a case can be made for it at least equalling TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA, and it's better than the previous two, but second only to HORROR OF DRACULA? GET OUTTA HERE!

reply

Best Hammer Dracula after the first one do you agree


Yes -- if this is Bizarro world.

reply

I would say it's the absolute worst, with "Dracula, Prince of Darkness" being the best after the first one.



reply

I really rate this film too, It moves at a decent clip, has a real sense of menace and dread along with characters you can really root for. Its only failing IMO and this applies to its predecessor 'AD 1972' is the lame way Dracula is killed off at its end.

reply