Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

the audience applauded

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

When audience's tastes started to change around the time this movie was made and movies from Hammer had their box office take decline, Hammer made some desperate attempts to regain their audience. One of the things they did was transport their "Dracula" movies into modern times with this movie, something that didn't please a number of people. Actually, I was quite open to the idea when I sat down to watch this movie, because I could see some great potential. However, I was let down by the end results. For starters, Dracula only appears in the movie about five or six times, and each time it's only for a brief appearance. Also, while the movie is set in modern times, almost nothing is done with this modern setting; with just a little rewriting, the movie could be taking place in the 19th century. But even then, the movie probably would come across the same way, being tired, familiar, and pretty predictable if you've seen your share of vampire movies as I have. I admit the end results could have been a lot worse, but I would only recommend the movie to fans of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing when they are in a forgiving mood.

The Hammer Dracula series was mostly solid and entertaining, but the last three films were disappointing and three of Hammer's lesser efforts. Dracula A.D. 1972 has often been considered the worst of the Hammer Dracula films, for me it is one of the weakest along with Satanic Rites but by no means unwatchable.Starting with what's good, the best assets are Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Cushing brings real dignity and class here to a character that ranks with his best, his dialogue is often absolutely terrible but he remarkably delivers it with much conviction and seriousness(without being overly so). Lee has very little screen time and even little dialogue but is a towering presence and the embodiment of evil. The cast generally actually are decent, with the most memorable being Christopher Neame, he overacts at times and does seem to be trying too hard at times to channel Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange but he is incredibly charismatic, very sinister and is so much fun to watch. There are three good scenes, the genuinely exciting opening coach fight which features one of Dracula's most memorable demises of the series, Dracula's resurrection which is one of the series' most imaginative and the tense and entertaining ending which is one of the series' better and more plausible ones. The photography is incredibly stylish and the lighting has a lot of vibrancy and atmosphere.However, Dracula A.D. 1972's biggest problem is that it is very dated(especially in the production values, script and music), a term I try to avoid using but I do feel that it applies here. And this is not just by today's standards, it was dated back in 1972 as well. The sets are really lacking in atmosphere and are quite tacky and gaudy in colour, a cheaper version of Austin Powers. The very 1970s costumes and hair-styles are pretty much the same. The script is howlingly bad, Cushing has the worst of the dialogue(some of which are endless explanations) but the howlers come from Alucard, and while it provides some unintentional entertainment at first it gets very tiresome soon after. The film even tries to incorporate some Dracula mythos, but does absolutely nothing with it, a decent idea wasted. The soundtrack dates the film terribly, not only does it sound incredibly cheesy but it is always incongruous with what is going on, with tense scenes almost completely ruined by inappropriately 'groovy' music.The story has its moments, but does drag badly and was in serious need of more suspense, mystery, excitement and tension. It is especially bad in the party scene, which goes on forever and serves no point to the story at all, instead showing off an exhausting display 1970s fashions and behaviour at its worst, complete with the most unconvincingly played hippies for any film. The direction is often far too languid, the characters are not really all that interesting or engaging(with the most important characters being severely under-utilised, Dracula and Van Helsing's rivalry is so much more interesting than everything else in this film, why not show more of it?) and while most of the acting from the main players is decent, Caroline Munro is mesmerising to watch but is wasted by being killed off too soon, Stephanie Beacham is sexy but quite vapid and the acting for the hippies is mostly terrible.All in all, not unwatchable but one of the weakest of the Hammer Dracula series and lesser Hammer overall. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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.

Modern horror movies love to place classic horror icons and characters in modern times and people love to hate modern horror movies for that! However, it really isn't something that's new, as this 1972 movie clearly demonstrates. It take the classic Hammer Dracula character and puts him into a 'modern' 1972 setting, no doubt also in an attempt to modernize and update the Dracula series, hoping this would boost the franchise again. It didn't really worked out though, since its one of the final Dracula movies from the Hammer studios but in all truth and honesty; I still quite liked it! Lets face it, all of the older Dracula movies set in more classic settings were starting to get extremely repetitive. All of the movies were being more or less the same, with very little variety to them. And while in essence this movie is also really being the same as any other classic Dracula movie story-wise, it still manages to feel like a breath of fresh air, due to its difference in style and settings.It definitely feels like a more modern movie, though of course in today's light, it still is a very outdated movie. It's really a product of its time, with some funky '70's clothing, music and type of characters. You could complain about it that this movie doesn't have enough vampire action in it, since this is definitely true but in all honesty, the same can be said for a lot of Dracula movies, also those from the Hammer studios. Blame Christopher Lee for that, since he was the one who was done with the character pretty early on already but agreed to still appear in Dracula movies as the count, probably just because it was quick, good money for him. But he always made sure his role was being as limited as possible and also his dialog always needed to be cut down to a minimum. But how can you be mad at Christopher Lee for that? after all, he's still an awesome and very charismatic Dracula, in every movie in which he plays the character.Also good news about this movie is that Peter Cushing returns in it, as professor Van Helsing. Or well, a decedent of him of course. It had been 12 years and 5 Dracula movies ago he starred opposite Christopher Lee. And he was truly missed in the 4 Dracula movies which that he didn't appeared in. Not just because he was a great actor but also really since he has just as much screen-presence and charisma as Lee and was capable of counterbalancing him. All of the Dracula movies without him basically lack a good and strong enough lead, that besides was being a memorable and likable enough character.You could argue about it if it truly adds something that this movie got set in 1972, since Dracula himself doesn't even ever get outside I believe but it does bring some originality and more creativity to the series, while still maintaining a good and typical Hammer studios horror style to it.7/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/