The end of an era: Christopher Lee hangs up his cape in this, his final bow as star of Hammer Films' Dracula series--fitting, since he was unhappy with the direction in which the cycle of movies was heading (and critics at the time agreed with him). In modern-day London, the Secret Service investigates strange goings-on in an isolated manor in the British countryside. When an imprisoned agent escapes the compound with proof that four dignitaries (a government minister, a Novel Prize-winning scientist, a general and a peer in the House of Lords)--as well as a possible fifth person who is camera-shy!--are involved in satanic rituals, occult specialist Professor Van Helsing and his granddaughter are consulted. Van Helsing learns his friend the scientist was ensnared by the cult in order to produce a new strain of bubonic plague--and that his nemesis, Count Dracula, has been revived and is posing as a reclusive land developer with an insidious plan to spread the plague and start a new apocalypse. Hammer's immediate follow-up to the dismal "Dracula A.D. 1972" (featuring the same director, Alan Gibson, and writer, Don Houghton) is a much-improved bloodsucker, dispensing with the Chelsea teenagers and replacing them with assassins on motorcycles and a basement full of nubile vampires. If Lee doesn't have much to do, he still cuts a foreboding presence and gets a bloody good send-off; Peter Cushing again excels as Van Helsing and the supporting cast is solid. Still, this story doesn't bear close scrutiny; once the bacillus is introduced, no one knows quite what to do with it (Van Helsing has a point when he asks if the Count really wants to rule over a world devoid of life), and there are two conspirators in the plot who are unaccounted for at the finale. Stylishly photographed by Brian Probyn and scored by John Cacavas, the film is a flawed but decent addition to the series with several tight action scenes and a great deal of suspense. **1/2 from ****

The widely despised final outing for Christopher Lee in his most famous role turns out to be much more entertaining than one would imagine. To enjoy the film one must firstly realise the numerous flaws - it's clichéd, in some places boring and plot less, and some parts don't make sense. But once the viewer gets over these obstacles (no small feat) then he'll find himself enjoying this action-cum-horror film from director Alan Gibson, who also blessed us with Dracula A.D. 1972. Indeed, the horror takes a back seat to the typical action we're used to seeing in such television shows as THE AVENGERS. Indeed, Joanna Lumley even stars (replacing Stephanie Beacham from the previous instalment) which makes the film seem even more like an episode of THE NEW AVENGERS than ever. I'm a big fan of '60s and '70s television shows so maybe that explains why I enjoyed this outing so much.The Satanic Rites of Dracula benefits from a superb cast. Christopher Lee is this time a villain who plans world domination as well as his usual fang-sinking exploits, and although he was sick of the role by this stage he is still perfectly adequate at cutting an imposing presence by lurking around with his long black cape and biting people. Peter Cushing's mere presence lifts the film a few notches as he brings back his role of the stern and inherently good Van Helsing, the perfect match for Lee's evil, murderous Dracula. Joanna Lumley provides effective support and Michael Coles is something of a poor man's David Warner (the resemblance is truly uncanny). Freddie Jones enjoys his small role.Included in the plot is a thread about a super plague which is entertaining. There are lots of fight scenes with guards and electronic things exploding (a staple of this decade) as well as shooting for a change (Cushing even takes a slug at one point). Scenes to watch out for are the bit where Cushing visits Lee in his high rise tower block, and Lee speaks with a Bela Lugosi mock accent. There is also a spectacular fiery ending where one man contracts the plague and rots into a black mess while Cushing and Lee lurk about in the forest outside, before Lee gets impaled on a fence post - and dissolves once again! There's a lot of cheesy fun and action to be had from this film, and I enjoyed it a heck of a lot. If you treat it kindly and as a type of cult item then The Satanic Rites of Dracula may just be your cup of tea.

"Dracula 1972 AD" failed to set the box office ablaze but Hammer wasn't ready to give up on its biggest franchise. Despite the public's disinterest, the studio pushed ahead with another Dracula film set in the modern day. The gamble didn't pay off the second time either. "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" would be the final Dracula film to feature Christopher Lee.Hammer's line of thinking clearly was that the public was sick of Gothic horror. "Satanic Rites" jettisons any trace of classic horror. Instead, the film is concerned with espionage action and conspiracy theories. The British Secret Service is investigating Satanic rituals. One features prominent members of society and claims to be raising people from the dead. The government brings in the modern day Van Helsing as a consultant. Van Helsing, teaming with his granddaughter and Detective Murray, quickly deduces that something sinister is afoot. A scientist, who mysteriously died, is connected to the Satanic circle. This traces back to reclusive millionaire D. D. Denham, who is none other then Count Dracula. Sick of his eternal life, Dracula intends to unleash a plague on the world, bringing upon the apocalypse.There's not much I like about "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" but I'll give the movie one thing. Many of the Hammer Dracula films play fast and loose with continuity. This one is a direct sequel to "Dracula 1972 AD." Peter Cushing plays the same descendant of Van Helsing. He even lives in the same apartment. His granddaughter Jessica, though played by a different actress, is back too, who has matured some in the two years since the last film. Inspector Murray returns as well and is even played by the same guy. The film directly references the end of the last one by pointing out that "D. D. Denham's" business building is built upon the remains of the church where Dracula died last time. About the only plot thread left dangling is how the Count returned to unlife. And even that's easy to address, as a viewer can assume his clan of Satanic followers resurrected him.Disappointingly, the returning characters are the only thing "The Satanic Rites" has in common with "1972 AD." The movie is not heavy on horror content. And what horror is there is totally different from what we expect. The Satanic rituals, which involve cultist in hoods standing in rooms pouring blood on a naked girl, feel totally of the time. Even Drac gets involved, as he lights black candles while a beautiful woman lies on an altar before him. There are other vampires in the movie. Two scenes take place in a basement where vampire maidens pop out of coffins. However, there's no fog, no old castles, no stone walls. Nothing about these scenes feels like a classic Hammer movie. It's not until the very end of the movie, when Cushing and Lee face off for the final time, that this film begins to feel anything like its predecessors. Van Helsing and Dracula have a stern face-off in a burning room before both flee. Walking into the woods, Dracula stumbles into a hawthorn bush, an obscure vampire weakness, allowing Van Helsing to stake the Count with a fencepost. It's a hugely dubious way to take Dracula out but at least it feels in line with the rest of the series.Most of "Satanic Rites" doesn't even feel like a horror film though. The film is obviously beholden to "The Avengers" and Roger Moore's Bond films but on a fraction of the budget. The action in the film is mostly limited to guys in fuzzy, suede vest chasing people on motorcycles. One moments has similarly garbed henchmen shooting sniper rifles at the heroes. Despite these unusual action beats, much of the film's runtime is devoted to old British guys sitting around and talking in rooms. There is so much droll exposition in these scenes or long moments of guys reading, watching, or looking at pictures. It's dull and seriously drags the pacing down.If nothing else, the film has the strength of its performers to fall back on. Peter Cushing is in a lot of the movie, bringing the same level of conviction to the role that he always does. Lee is given more to do then in his last appearance. The vampire count doesn't bite too many beautiful maidens on the neck, save for one scene. Instead, his best moments center on the Count delivering some harsh monologues. Dracula talking about his apocalyptic plans allows Lee to (if you'll excuse the pun) sink his teeth into the hammy dialogue. The final confrontation between the two, where Dracula prepares to bring about the end of the world and Van Helsing stares him down, is easily the best moment of the film. As for the rest of the cast, Michael Coles gets to do some cool stuff as Inspector Murray, staking vampires and throwing some punches. Future comedy superstar Joanna Lumley is less charming then Stephanie Beachum as Jessica and honestly given less to do. It's disappointing that the film reduces the character to a damsel in distress once again.Director Alan Gibson, returning from "Dracula 1972 AD," is less sturdy this time. He employs rough zoom-ins far too many times. The funky score is pretty catchy though. "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" is a real off entry in the series. The pacing lags horribly, the plot isn't that interesting, and the film barely feels like a Dracula movie. The movie wasn't bad enough to kill the franchise, as Dracula would return in the next year's even odder "Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires." However, it was bad enough to finally make Christopher Lee yell enough. The iconic actor has never put the cape on since. He did not exit on a high note.

This is the worst Dracula without a doubt. I wasn't exactly "bored" but it's fairly lifeless. One thing I noticed was that it lacks the stylistic touches that Hammer films usually have, which was always integral in my opinion. Everything seems old, worn down, and dreary. It wasn't a very positive experience. I will give credit to some solid cinematography of London, especially in the opening credits. There are some picturesque scenes that are really well done. They tried to rejuvenate the series with the contemporary setting, and placing Dracula in the modern era, but it doesn't fit at all. Count Dracula felt out of place in this movie. Christopher Lee himself doesn't look very enthusiastic about being in this movie. He seems to be on auto-pilot, not that I blame him. He didn't have a whole lot to do, and he didn't have a great deal of screen time. I read on Wikipedia that Lee was becoming more disillusioned with each new Dracula movie, and it shows. It wasn't a great performance, his send off is being killed by a thorn bush. How's that for gratitude? Peter Cushing is once again our protagonist as Van Helsing. Since this is set in the modern era, he is a "descendant" of the original Van Helsing in the earlier Dracula movies. Cushing is dependable as always, even when he doesn't have much to work with. I usually get excited whenever Lee & Cushing face off. Two of the greatest horror veterans in history, but it felt contrived and ordinary in this one, which is quite sad. Joanna Lumley is subtly sexy as Van Helsing's granddaughter. She doesn't have a whole lot to do either. I felt there were too many pointless characters. Aside from a good opening escape, and a suspenseful attack in a cellar, this movie doesn't have much as far as thrills go. Final Thoughts: It's a bit disillusioning to see Christopher Lee go out like he did. Hammer reinvented Dracula, and to see a series of this magnitude end on a whimper is saddening. 4.7/10