OK Hammer horror film. Three Victorian gentlemen (through some VERY convoluted circumstances) beat to death a servant (Ralph Bates REALLY chewing the scenery) of Dracula. This somehow revives Dracula (Christopher Lee) who vows vengeance on the men. He either hypnotizes or turns their children into vampires who kill their fathers.Not a bad film. It's handsomely produced and (with the sole exception of Bates) has good acting...but why is Dracula in it? He doesn't pop up until 50 minutes in and is hardly in it thereafter. He seems like a mere afterthought. The movie mostly concentrates on the romance between Alice Hargood (Linda Hayden) and Paul Paxton (Anthony Higgins). Still it's not bad with few bitings and bloody killings. However a bigger role for Lee could have only helped. So it's OK. Try to see the R rated 95 minute version. Avoid the edited 91 minute PG version.

Dracula's back and out for revenge after a trio of rich old perverts kills his disciple. This one requires some patience for Dracula fans as it takes a good forty-five minutes or so before Dracs is actually resurrected, but it's worth the build-up. It helps that he's taking out some dirtbags in this one. Granted he's willing to go after their innocent family members to get to them, so I wouldn't call him the hero of the story, but he's far from the worst villain in the movie either. A significant amount of time is also spent on the lame romantic subplot. But, for the most part, this is a fun entry in Hammer's series and one that most fans will enjoy.

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.