Best movie of this year hands down!

Just perfect...

It is a performances centric movie

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Three Victorian thrill seekers, Hargood (Geoffrey Keen), Paxton (Peter Sallis) and Secker (John Carson), make regular trips to an East End brothel disguised as charity work. They go to great pains to maintain a facade of respectability among their friends, family and community since they are well established in their professions and held in high esteem. They meet Lord Courtley (Ralph Bates), a depraved devil worshipper disowned by his aristocrat father, who arouses their curiosity by suggesting they sell their souls to the devil. At a black magic ceremony in a ruined church, the three men become terrified at what they are witnessing and batter Courtley to death before fleeing. However, Count Dracula (Christopher Lee), the lord of the undead, is revived through him since he had drank his blood prior to being murdered. "They have destroyed my servant", he says. "They will be destroyed" and he sets about corrupting the three men's children and turning them on them...One of the best of Hammer's celebrated Dracula cycle even though, as many have declared, it isn't really a Dracula film at all since the screenplay seems to have been conceived as a straightforward vampire yarn with the Count added in at the last minute. Indeed when one thinks about it any old ghoul would have done here since the Count is not the most important aspect of the film's plot. In a clever and sometimes thought provoking screenplay, Anthony Hinds (writing under his usual pseudonym of John Elder), the emphasis is on the corruption and hypocrisy of society in Victorian England, which is powerfully brought out by director Peter Sasdy here making his promising feature debut. In that respect his style mirrors very much that of the legendary Terence Fisher. There are a number of ironies in the script like Hargood telling his daughter Alice (Linda Hayden) not to "smile and flirt with that young man" meaning her boyfriend Paul Paxton (Anthony Corlan) whom he dislikes intensely. Banishing her to her room saying that her lunch and supper will be sent up on a tray he says "I will not have you displaying yourself in that provocative manner" and accusing her of behaving immorally in "god's house". Yet, he attends a brothel behind his wife and family's back and later defies god by dabbling in satanism with the view of selling his soul to the devil.Sasdy has a strong feeling for the period detail, which is greatly enhanced by the beautiful set design of Scott MacGregor and Arthur Grant's technicolor camerawork that is among the best he ever shot for a Hammer film. Sasdy assembled a fine cast here too with Geoffrey Keen, John Carson and Peter Sallis all shining as the three hypocritical and corrupt "pillars of the community" who pay the price for letting their curiosity get the better of them and dabbling with black magic and debauchery that is best left alone. Christopher Lee, as in most of his later Dracula films, gets precious little to do and is little more than a supporting character here as the source of evil that the three men unwittingly let upon their unsuspecting community. But, Lee was still the best actor to play Bram Stoker's character on the big screen and he makes the most of the acting opportunities that his limited screen time allows for. Roy Kinnear is in there too as a salesman who procures the remains of Count Dracula - his cloak, signet ring and his powderised blood - for Courtley that provide the basis for the ceremony in the ruined church. Even the juvenile leads Linda Hayden and Anthony Corlan are excellent here. Ralph Bates who was to become a regular leading man in latter day Hammer horrors is quite good as the depraved satanist Lord Courtley. There are some well delivered shocks - the most harrowing of them has to be Paxton's staking in the ruined church at the hands of his own daughter and Alice willed to do so by the vengeful Dracula. All in all, despite the disappointment of Lee having not very much to do, this is still front rank Hammer horror with its skilful depiction of the hypocrisy of the Victorian establishment and as a warning to us all not to allow our curiosity to get the better of us and meddle in things that are best left alone.

I think this, "Taste the Blood of Dracula," is easily the best of Hammer's Dracula sequels. Unlike the other mere bosoms-and-blood affairs, it gets at something of Bram Stoker's novel: Dracula's invasion as a self-inflicted undermining of the hypocrisy of English society. And, that message had some resonance with Hammer's target audience of Vietnam-War-era youth. It, too, also has plenty of bosoms and blood.Dracula is revived by three hypocritical men. They pretend to be socially-respectable husbands and fathers, but they also visit the brothel—in a sequence containing the first glimpses of nudity in Hammer's Dracula series and among the earliest in general among Dracula movies. When they bore of such titillation, they engage Lord Courtley, who for whatever reasons is a kept man due to the generosity of the prostitutes, to procure for them more thrilling delights. Courtley offers them Satanism in the form of a ceremony where they drink a cocktail of Dracula's powdered blood liquified by Courtley donating some of his own, fresh plasma. The hypocrites refuse, however, and, instead, they demand Courtley drink some. He does and begins gagging, at which point the other men beat him to death! Somehow, this resurrects Dracula and, in another flimsy revenge plot (like in "Dracula has Risen from the Grave" (1968)), he seeks to compel the children of the hypocrites to kill their fathers… because, apparently, Dracula cared about Courtley, his servant, or, more likely, he's just upset that someone other than himself killed him. Obviously, as evidenced by his killing Lucy and turning his back on Alice, he doesn't seem to care about his minions.Stoker's book, too, was about Dracula invading a sexually-repressed English society and, in effect, exposing their hypocrisy by exchanging bodily fluids with them and turning them into wanton vampires. In "Taste the Blood of Dracula," the Count does this for the benefit of the youth. Dracula is like the Id monster from "Forbidden Planet" (1956), fulfilling the wishes of the rebellious children by allowing them to murder their repressive parents. Alice's father won't let her go to a party with Paul; OK, Alice will cut daddy's head open with a shovel, then. Once the hypocrites are dispensed with, save the inspector who'll steal a drink on the clock in private but not inebriate himself so publicly when offered the liquor (although maybe vampire Jeremey will still be around to bite him), Dracula is dispensed with. In the face of true puppy love, he is killed by Paul's decorating of Dracula's lair as a church and, presumably, setting the stage for Paul and Alice's red wedding.So, I disagree with those who say Dracula is a mere afterthought in this outing; rather, he's finally integral to a decent story in the Hammer series. Plus, Christopher Lee's Count is a supporting monster in every one of Hammer's Dracula movies. The rest of the cast is probably the best of any of their Dracula films, too. The reading of Jonathan Secker's letter, as Paul prepares himself like a young Van Helsing for battle, is genuinely exciting. And, it's about time Hammer moved the series to England instead of some vague continental-European place populated by Brits. Probably because they didn't have to hide as much, the art direction seems better and more open as a result.(Mirror Note: Nothing to speak of—Lucy's father is seen through the mirror a couple times in their home's entryway.)

This is a sequel to Dracula has risen from the grave. It is one of the scariest movies ever made. If you like scary movies then you need to see this movie. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. In it very intense. Dracula is resurrected. He is out of revenge of the people who killed his servant. This is very scary movie. Scars of Dracula is a little better. Dracula A.D 1972 is also a little better. The satanic rites of Dracula is also a little better. This is the fifth part to the Dracula hammer series. It is better then the first four. Don't get me wrong the first four hammer Dracula movies are very scary. But this one his scarier.

When one walks into a Hammer 'Dracula' film there has to be a realization that the titular monster will be all but reduced to nothing more than a glorified cameo in some areas. I can absolutely see and understand Lee's frustration with the character. Most of the entries in the series feel as though they were written without the Dracula character given concrete reasons to do or say anything. 'Taste the Blood of Dracula' is no exception to this rule. Lee's Dracula is nothing more than a plot piece with stirring dialogue like "The first...". Part of me thinks Hammer should be embarrassed for wasting a talent like Christopher Lee's time. And yet 'Taste the Blood of Dracula' is one of the finest entries in the series. I dare say it's actually better than the 1958 original 'Horror of Dracula'. Why is that? Because even though Dracula is but a caricature, this film is filled with intriguing characters and an inspired plot which although not exploited to it's full potential plays with fresh ideas in a stale Dracula series that often didn't know what it wanted to do. Hammer had many strengths but developing characters was not one of them. If they didn't have talents like Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing in their roles I think the studio would failed to be remembered or endeared as much as it is. Hammer is famous for creating wooden heroes to combat their monsters. 'Taste the Blood of Dracula' does something inspired. It populates it's film not just with the Count and a wooden hero but also a cast of sinners. I get behind this inspired idea immediately. The thought of these old perverts dabbling in Satanism for erotic thrills is one of the most original horror plots of this time period. It plays exactly into Hammer's strengths of not so subtly teasing the juxtaposition of sex and horror. If anything I wish the film fell into the last cycle of Hammer films and had the hardcore exploitation aspects of 'Dracula AD 1972' and 'Satanic Rites'. What draws me to Hammer films are these kind of characters with dark secrets. I think that's why Peter Cushing's Frankenstein is still so endearing. These three old perverts are the perfect critique and parody of the kind of uptight British culture that these Hammer films were so perfect at rebelling against. I love the fact that Lee's Dracula is not the one to kill these creeps but instead Dracula turns their children against them. This is fresh and inspired material that perfectly encapsulates what Hammer was.The cast is damn good too and they turn in fine performances. Lee actually doesn't give the best performance in the film and he usually always does. I absolutely love Ralph Bates and think he is by far the most underrated Hammer performer. I sort of wish I could have seen the film as originally intended with Bates taking over the cloak as Lord Courtley. He has a mad fire and anger to his performance. He pretty blatantly chews the scenery in his black mass scene but it's so damn entertaining and sincere that I really loved it. Geoffrey Keen is also particularly good as William Hargood, the leader of this elderly perverts. He's sly and quiet in his delivery. He really embodies what one thinks a snake looks like. I would have wished he and Dracula had more of a confrontation. Unsurprisingly, our hero Paul and his beau Alice are the least interesting characters and get boring performances as well. Anthony Higgins is likable enough but the material is so boring and he just plays the straight laced hero as cut out as possible with no edge. This Dracula film is one of the better Hammer entries because it actually has the guts to take some risks. I think despite Lee's reservations about the Dracula series being stale and predictable that he can be proud here. This film is a darker and more morbid experience inhabited with the devilish characters Hammer did so well. It is a sufficiently entertaining treat.