IMDb user comments for
The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Index

75 comments in total

---

21 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
Best of the Hammer Dracula sequels, 15 August 2003

Author: Matthew Michael from Leeds, England

This is a much-maligned film that seems to have been tarred with the same brush as the dire Dracula A.D. 1972, simply because it updates the Dracula legend to the present day. Satanic Rites is an infinitely superior movie, however, and easily the best of the Hammer Dracula sequels. Previous sequels had seen the Count resurrected only to lurk in the shadows and momentarily reveal himself to take his revenge on his foes, reducing Christopher Lee's Dracula to little more than a glorified extra. Satanic Rites is different because it uses Lee's scant appearances to its advantage, keeping Dracula aloof and mysterious and instead concerning itself with the disease of vampirism, which is compared to a plague. Because of it's science fiction overtones, this feels more like an instalment of The Avengers or Doctor Who than a typical Hammer film. In its present-day setting and apocalyptic storyline, it also seems to be a definite influence on the highly-regarded TV series Ultraviolet. For the fan of classic Hammer Gothic Horror, this is probably best avoided, but for those who enjoy British telefantasy it's an absolute must see.

---

11 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Last rites for a once great franchise, 14 February 2005

Author: johnnyparker from Oxford, England.

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The legendary Mr. Lee's last outing for dear old Hammer Studios in his red contact lenses and silk-lined cape. And what a sorry end to what was once one of the real jewels of British cinema, the Hammer horror franchise.

Whilst there are one or two glimmers of the style and talent that put Hammer at the top of the tree in the 50s and 60s, this awkward hybrid of espionage thriller and supernatural horror never really gets off the ground. Lee has so little screen time he could probably sue the filmmakers under the Trade's Descriptions Act - "The Satanic Rites of a Bunch of Other People You Don't Give a Stuff About, not the Famous Vampire Count You Were Hoping For" might be a more accurate title.

What irks me about this film is not just that it (along with its predecessor, AD72) represents a cheap, slipshod ending to the Hammer Dracula cycle, but that it's not even true to the spirit of those wonderful originals. What few thrills there are derive mostly from some motorcycle stunts and a bit of fashionable nudity. Lee might as well have phoned in his part, and poor old Peter Cushing, still reeling from the death of his beloved wife Helen, walks through what little action he's given like a refugee from Plague of the Zombies.

And as for the ending, well, there used to be a well-defined mythology in these movies, a vampiric rulebook that everybody abided by. Bram Stoker made most of it up in the first place, but once they'd put their spin on it, the Hammer boys generally stuck to it: garlic, stakes, holy water, silver bullets, running water, all that stuff we'd all rely on to dispatch the bloodsucking nobleman if he ever started licking his lips in our bedrooms. But suddenly, out of nowhere, there's this new lethal substance, something else that can do for a vampire - the King of the Vampires even. And what is it? A hawthorn tree. Yes, you heard right; Dracula, immortal, super-powerful, supreme monster that he is, curls up his pointy toe-nailed tootsies and shuffles off this mortal coil because he gets his cape caught in a bloody hawthorn tree. Ho hum. (Mind you, they can give you a nasty scratch can those hawthorn trees.)

Clearly Hammer had seen the writing on the wall splattered there by Night of the Living Dead and The Exorcist, but although it tried, it simply couldn't adapt. The truth is that the classical Hammer ethos doesn't really translate to the modern idiom. The films were very much of their time, and the times, as Mr. Dylan so helpfully reminds us, they are a changin'.

So charge your glasses with the best of British blood, leave this one in the rental store and check out something from the golden era of Hammer. Contrary to one of the film's many misleading alternative titles, Dracula is not alive and well and living in London. He's dead. And Hammer buried him.

---

14 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Pretty good, considering some of the others in the series., 6 February 2003
Author: FoxRyan from Newcastle, UK

Saw Satanic Rites last night for the second time, and paid more attention this time. The film, if you`re waiting to see a lot of Dracula will be a bit of a let down (but let`s face it, since Taste the Blood of Dracula, I don`t think Christopher Lee has had 30 minutes screen time with all of the Dracula films joined together.) The movie starts slowly, with, for once, no Dracula resurrection scene. He`s just back, and does not appear until well into the film. (He appears in a scene obviously stuck in because they realized he had not made an appearance at all so long into the film). When Peter Cushing appears, you start to feel like this is a proper Hammer film after all. Peter Cushing really does this one justice. Then from the time he visits D.D.Denham, it is a pretty good Dracula picture. The action between our hero and villain gets going, and builds up to a reasonable finale. This is better than Dracula AD 1972, but as I have said before, the whole series should have stayed in Victorian times. Joanna Lumley is radiant as Jessica, who's character returns from the previous film. It is a pretty scary premise. Dracula, finally sick of being resurrected for 2 or 3 days at a time, wants to end it all, but in doing this, he wants to take everyone with him. THE WHOLE WORLD! It is a good plot which just happens to have Dracula as the figure-head. For once Christopher Lee gets a reasonably decent script and delivers his lines beautifully. A couple of points. In some of the Dracula films, we are introduced to new but apparently tested ways of dealing with the fanged one. Dracula, Prince of Darkness introduced clear running water, as used at the end of DPOD, in Dracula AD 1972, and in Satanic Rites. Then in AD `72 we are introduced to the fact that the good Count can be knobbled with a silver bladed knife. Handy, since Van Helsing has one. Then in this movie, Van Helsing introduces the Hawthorn bush, from which Christ recieved his crown of thorns. Guess where Drac ends up near the end? Do these things really work? Or is it just that sunlight and the old stake are boring now, and the writers just make these things up? I feel a bit cheated when someone like Dracula can be beaten by lightning, drowned in a moat (NOT running water), or overcome in a church (whereas he had already killed a girl and placed her body in a full blown God worshipping church.) This film, when it gets going, is a pleasing finale to the Christopher Lee years as Dracula, and to boot, Peter Cushing delivers a really good performance too.

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
A hugely entertaining change-of-pace Hammer horror vampire/action/thriller hybrid romp, 12 January 2007

Author: Woodyanders (Woodyanders@aol.com) from The Last New Jersey Drive-In on the Left

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

By the early 70's Hammer Studios began making attempts to revitalize their by now trite'n'tired period Gothic horror formula with varying degrees of success. This enjoyably daft contemporary blend of horror, action and spy suspense thriller rates as one of their more engagingly offbeat efforts. Something sinister is afoot in modern swinging 70's London. For starters, there's a dastardly Satanic cult made up of wealthy businessmen and powerful politicians who participate in sick and kinky unholy rituals. Moreover, the leader of said cult is none other than Dracula (Christopher Lee, as fearsome and imposing as ever). Worse yet, brilliant, yet batty Professor Julian Keeley (a delightfully dotty Freddie Jones) has been commissioned by Dracula to create a virulent new strain of bubonic plague which could wipe out all mankind. It's up to occult expert Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing in typically fine form), his comely granddaughter Jessica (a pleasingly perky turn by ravishing redhead Joanna Lumley) and stalwart Scotland Yard special agent Inspector Murray (dashing Michael Coles) to stop Dracula before it's too late. Alan Gibson's lively, stylish direction treats the outlandish premise with admirable seriousness and maintains a ceaseless barnstorming pace throughout. The action scenes and shock set pieces are staged with substantial go-for-it brio (the use of strenuous slow motion is especially striking and effective). Brian Probyn's bright, sharp cinematography, the plentiful graphic gore, John ("Horror Express") Cacavas' funky, rousing, syncopated score, a smidgen of nudity, and sound acting from a tip-top cast all likewise hit the satisfying spot. Grood, groovy 70's fright feature fun.

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Much better-than-expected close to the series, 3 May 2006

Author: frid2k4 (frid2k4@yahoo.com) from Los Angeles, Ca

"The Satanic Rites of Dracula" is a pretty decent conclusion to the Lee-Cushing cycle of films.

**SPOILERS**

The meetings of a secret organization at Pelham House worries the British Intelligence when evidence is unearthed of high ranking officials taking part of satanic rituals. Occult expert Professor Larimer Van Helsing, (Peter Cushing) is called upon to interpret the evidence, and finds a friend of his, Professor Keeley, (Freddie Jones) is involved. When Van Helsing goes to question him of the incident, Keeley is killed and Van Helsing left for dead. Returning to the authorities and his niece Jessica, (Joanna Lumley) with the information from the meeting, they find that Count Dracula, (Christopher Lee) is behind this, and is about to unleash his final vengeance on mankind. Van Helsing hurries to stop him before it's too late.

The Good News: In a weird way, I really liked this one. Even though this is no where near the glory of the original ones in the series, it has some entertaining moments that make it a little brighter than some have called on it. The most obvious is the really great storyline. It was really enjoyable to see Dracula going to great measures to strike a fatal blow to mankind instead of the clichéd Van Helsing family. It adds to the power of the creature, as he now becomes far more menacing and dangerous than ever before. Dracula's idea for the ultimate revenge on mankind is terrifying, and this makes us that much more scared of him than before. The sequences shot in the Pelham house, which comprise most of the running time, are quite typical Hammer fare and relegate terror and gloom effectively. The final sequences in the basement is the film's best moment, as a gaggle of female vampires are resurrected and crawl from their crate coffins, pawing and hissing at their would be victim is highly effective. The nighttime ritual scenes are also nice gloomy, and give off the requisite dose of brutality that the films at the time needed. And how could not mentioning Lee and Cushing here be anything less than insulting? Lee has the most screen-time here than in ages, and more importantly, is allowed to do more than in past instances. A nice change of pace from the norm there.

The Bad News: There were several instances of severe plot mistakes that I noticed which would not foul a rookie to these films. Dracula's mansion is literally teeming with harmful objects: why would he keep them there? If Dracula had any common sense, he'd have had anything that could even be remotely called a stake removed from the property, have the picket fence lining the boundary replaced with a brick wall and cut down the new form of hurting a vampire in this film, a Hawthorne bush, which leads to the next complaint. Where does this come from as a form of hurting vampires? It's never mentioned before, never called upon afterward, and is conveniently placed in a location that screams "trap!" There are literally dozens of moments in here that had the very same feeling, and little more thought put into the script instead of getting it done in a hurry for Mr. Lee would've gone a long way with this one.

The Final Verdict: It's not as bad as some say it is, and is a nice and worthy send-off for Lee-Cushing Dracula films. A little extra dose of exploitation and a chilling idea overcome the lapses in the action here. Seek it out if you call yourself a fan of the Hammer series or of the Cushing-Lee franchise, but it does stretch itself a little in some areas.

Today's Rating-R: Violence, Nudity and some Language

---

11 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Not As Bad As Is Made Out, 1 February 2002

Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute , Scotland

The only problem I can see with this film is that it's very far removed from the horror franchise that started with the original Hammer Dracula in the late 50's, in fact I can't help thinking that it was conceived as a violent thriller that didn't feature Dracula or Van Helsing. That might explain the slightly lame ending.

As it stands THE SATANIC RITES OF Dracula does have some effective moments such as the opening escape scene and the plague victim , and there's a very bleak feel to the film through out. If you compare it to the earlier films in the Hammer cycle your enjoyment of this one will be spoiled . So don't compare it

---

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Ignore the naysayers - one of Hammer's best, 2 February 2004
Author: LewisJForce (gunghomonro@yahoo.com) from Wolverhampton, England

The accepted wisdom regarding the Hammer Dracula pictures is that they started great, tailed off to good, and, by the time the 70's rolled round, were stinkers. Well, sorry friends, but this time the accepted wisdom is wrong.

Personally, I have never been a great fan of Vampire films in general and Dracula in particular. The vast majority of the Hammer fang flicks bore me rigid (I like the Frankenstein's though - especially 'and the monster from Hell'). And I've always thought that Chris Lee was far better employed in other roles. But 'The Satanic rites of Dracula' represents the best of Hammer and Lee.

For me, one of it's major strengths is that Dracula remains implied rather than seen until the last third of the film. Instead, we view the sinister workings of his organization and it's minions. Lee appears after the first 30 minutes, in a short and ineffective scene in which he emerges from a puff of smoke to claim a kidnapped damsel, and then disappears again for another 30. This brief, unsatisfactory piece of business was presumably inserted to reassure punters who were worried that half an hour had elapsed without presenting the title character. Personally, I'd cut it to make an even better film.

The withholding of the chief vampire manages to build up a real sense of atmosphere and some genuine foreboding, which pays off well in the great little sequence where Cushing's Van Helsing finally confronts the Count, who has been operating under the funky moniker of D.D. Denham. A simple but very effectively staged episode with Pete n' Chris on top form.

The film as a whole is well shot and cut by ex-'Avengers' man Alan Gibson, who creates an effectively bleak and chilly atmosphere through good location work (a seemingly deserted London and Dracula's spooky country retreat) and some well designed interiors (hidden, seedy MI5 offices and Dracula's business headquarters). The tone and 'feel' of the picture is nicely established by the opening credits sequence. Again, simple but effective.

There are good performances by Cushing, Lee, William Franklyn, Freddie Jones and Michael Coles. Even Joanna Lumley. A modicum of 70's cheese, as evidenced by the vampire brides sequence and John Cacavas' cool 'chicka-wah' score, enriches, rather than taints, the whole experience. And some choice lines of fruity dialogue raise an occasional delighted grin. I've seen the film numerous times over the past 11 or 12 years and for me it never palls.

Along with 'Captain Kronos', definitely one of Hammers best.

---

10 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
end of an era, 18 May 2006

Author: signofend from United Kingdom

Hammer's last throw with Christopher Lee who refused to do another Dracula after AD 1972. He regarded the last Hammer's as such a departure from Stoker as to be sacrilegious. This replaces horror with a thriller. Dracula in a thriller? French Connection was a thriller. How does the suave and deadly Count become transplanted into a more style which uses more realism? He cannot, he is incongruous. Consequently Dracula makes almost no appearance until the last 15 minutes. The rest of the film is a chase between his henchmen and Cushing with the police. The quality of the Dracula films had deteriorated in their glamour and stylishness and transferring to the modern day was an attempt to inject glamour again. The most interesting piece of this film is the satanic rite of the title. Its images and practises have been used by the Church of Satan and other occult groups. The actor, scientist and parapsychologist Stephen Armourae has referred to it in articles and the actress Mia Martin has appeared in some of his drawings and paintings. Oddly despite such a high profile release none of the actors including Pauline Peart and Mia Martin did anything since despite their glamour and looks.

---

7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Christopher Lee in a cloak....part 7, 28 December 2004

Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls

The last film in Hammer's Dracula-cycle certainly isn't the best in the series but it remains fascinating to see how the legendary horror studios continue to bring variation to the old theme. After all, Dracula once started out as a subversive myth and in this film he's used like a metaphor to generalize "new" forms of evil such as diseases, the apocalypse, greed and fraud. The elaboration of "Satanic Rites of Dracula" isn't always as professional as it should be, but – for Hammer fans – there are more than enough elements to enjoy, including Cushing & Lee in their finest form and a grotesquely violent climax. Compared to most Hammer films, however, this title contains less action and a lot more talking. The setting in present time is something you support or not…but even if you don't really like the combination of count Dracula and luxurious skyscrapers, I think you should still appreciate the efforts Alan Gibson is making to uphold the vile image of our bloodsucking friend. The Satanic Rites of Dracula is the last film in the series and definitely worth checking out if you're fan of the Lee-Cushing team or just Hammer in general.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Not the usual Hammer Dracula but I like it anyway, 29 May 2007

Author: TheEdge-4 from Rochford, Essex

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I yield to no one in my liking for the standard Hammer Gothic horror set in the Mittel Europe Carpathian mountains complete with villagers who refuse to go near to Castle Dracula unless armed with flaming torches to burn the place down. But every so often, Hammer tried something different, with varying degrees of success. "The Devil Rides Out" was set in 1930s England and is generally regarded by many (including me) as being one of Hammer's very best films. Others such as "Dracula A.D. 72" (often known unofficially as Dracula meets the hippies) and this one, "The Satanic Rites of Dracula", which drag Dracula into modern seventies London, were less critically regarded.

Any film set in present day will always date quicker than a film set in the past. "Dracula A.D. 72" suffers in this respect more than "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" as the former features a supposedly wild gang of hippies who are in fact nothing of the kind (one of which includes a very young Michael Kitchen, years before "Foyle's War"). "The Satanic Rites" of Dracula", however, largely escapes this fate (apart from the motorcycle hit men with a dodgy preference for fur-lined waist coats and long sideburns). I still enjoy "Dracula A.D. 72" nonetheless even though I would class it as very much a guilty pleasure. The "Satanic Rites of Dracula" is literally another story however.

One of the highpoints of "Dracula A.D. 72" however is the stylish direction of Canadian director Alan Gibson and Hammer brought him back to helm this final Hammer Dracula (unless you count (sorry) Dracula's cameo appearance in "The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires"). Thanks to Gibson, several scenes here work wonderfully (the scene in which Joanna Lumley is menaced in the cellar by the female vampires is particularly well done and the scene in which William Franklyn's character is shot in slow motion was obviously Gibson's idea of a Sam Peckinpah pastiche which I promise you you will never see in another Hammer film).

In fact, this film is different from nearly all the other Hammer films in a number of ways. It's probably one of the best photographed of all the Hammer films, thanks to cameraman Brian Probyn who had photographed some of Terence Malick's seminal masterpiece "Badlands". The film has a glossy look the belies the small amount of money that was probably spent on making it. In fact, the whole style of the film is different. One of the previous posters here has likened it to an episode of "The Avengers" (rather appropriate as Joanna Lumley, here playing Peter Cushing's granddaughter, Jessica Van Helsing, would go on to play Purdey in "The New Avengers" just a few years later). I'd agree with that and as a result the story plays more as a thriller rather than the standard Hammer Gothic horror. I always thought that bringing Dracula into the present day is a spectacularly bad idea, but if you are going to do it, then the way it is done here works fine. The idea of presenting Dracula as a present day Howard Hughes, hardly seen by anyone is a good idea (a real bloodsucking businessman, that has to be a first). And John Cacavas' music is effective, even though it is completely different to Hammer regular James Bernard's usual style (then again so was Mike Vickers' music in "Dracula A.D. 72").

Acting wise, Lee and Cushing are the usual class acts (Lee as usual has little to do other than quote a few lines from Stoker's original when given the chance). Michael Coles, William Franklyn, Freddie Jones and Joanna Lumley are good in support (even though Lumley's responsible character of Jessica Van Helsing seems to have changed radically from Stephanie Beacham's rebellious portrayal in "Dracula A.D. 72" - still perhaps nearly falling victim to a vampire does that to a girl). And Valerie Van Ost makes a great vampire (once she takes those glasses off, she's beautiful - who knew?) If you approach this film as a thriller rather than the traditional Hammer fare, I think you will enjoy it. Just as long as you don't expect any villagers with torches to turn up in the third act (although Pelham House does go up in flames anyway - unlike certain vampires, some traditions never die).

---

---

Page 1 of 8:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history