User reviews

In 1872, Dracula was finally put to rest by Professor Van Helsing. One hundred years later, a group of young people thinks it might be good for a few laughs to perform a Black Mass. Unknown to them, a member of their group is a decedent of one of Dracula's disciples who has been waiting for this opportunity to bring Dracula back from the dead. Alive in modern day London, Dracula now seeks revenge against the Van Helsing family and plans to get that revenge by making Jessica Van Helsing one of his kind.

Take a look around the internet and you'll notice that on almost every list of favorite Hammer vampire films, Dracula A.D. 1972 is at or near the bottom. I don't get it. I actually had a bit of fun with this one. The scenes of the Black Mass were sufficiently creepy, much of the hip 70s music and vibe were infectious, Stephanie Beacham made a great heroine as Jessica Van Helsing, Christopher Neame was perfectly cast as Dracula's disciple Johnny Alucard, and the final showdown between Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing is one of the better match-ups they had in these roles. I enjoyed it so much that I have no problem placing Dracula A.D. 1972 among my three favorite of Hammer's Dracula films.

It just goes to prove that while recommendations on the internet can be useful, taking a chance on a movie with a less than stellar reputation can sometimes payoff.

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It definitely feels like a more modern movie, though of course in today's light, it still is a very outdated movie.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/

I don't understand why people constantly put-down this movie (and its sequel Satanic Rites Of Dracula) They're both great fun and much more enjoyable than the stodgy Taste The Blood Of Dracula (in fact Satanic in my opinion is the best of the whole Hammer Dracula cycle in my opinion!)

I've noticed lots of people pointing to the 7O's factor as feeling very dated- (well, what else were people supposed to be playing in 1972- 90's techno music?) I quite enjoyed Stoneground's little performance and to knock the soundtrack by Michael Vickers is unfair as it is constantly enjoyable and funky to listen to. Add the ever-reliable Peter Cushing and a Christopher Lee who DOESN'T look like he's going through the motions (even if he had doubts about doing the movie) and a well-off-the-wall- but enjoyable nevertheless performance by Christopher Neame as Johnny Alucard and you get a lovely slice of 70's horror nostalgia! And I'm sorry anybody with a spirit of fun about them has got to love a movie with lines like "Tell us about the blood, Johnny!" By the way I noticed a previous reviewer was confused by the beginning of the movie and whether Christopher Neame was a descendant of the character in the 1880 prologue- well of course he was! I thought that was made clear.... (by the way, interesting note of trivia, Mr Neame claims that when he was bit by Christopher Lee in the movie he did indeed become a full-fledged initiated vampire- he even lists it on his CV as a proud fact! See the Flesh and Blood Hammer Documentary for the full story.....)

In the late 1950s Hammer Films revolutionised horror with the likes of 'The Curse of Frankenstein' (1957) and 'Dracula' (1958) which, for the time, pushed boundaries in terms of gore (not least through the knowledgeable use of colour film) and eroticism. They were commercial and critical successes that resurrected a dead genre (pun intended) and opened the door for a boom in horror movies equivalent to that in the 1930s.

However, cut to the beginning of the 1970s and society itself had gone from Black and White to Technicolour due to the flowering of the counter-culture which saw all social institutions subject to intense criticism or outright attack and in horror we had seen the all-out assault of George A. Romero's 'Night of the Living Dead' (1968). As a result, recognising that quaint Vampire movies from England just don't get the scares they used to, Hammer tried to change things up. One thing they tried was ditching the subtle but potent eroticism for simply showing more tits and having the women engage in lesbianism. Another, more respectable, thing was to attempt to update the vampire story to make it more relevant to a modern audience. And from this comes 'Dracula AD 1972'.

The plot is basically the same as any other of the Dracula sequels that came in the wake of 'Dracula' (1958): the count, dead since his last encounter with Van Helsing is brought back by a dutiful underling and seeks revenge. The film begins with an impressive period piece prologue showing Dracula's staking a hundred years ago and then, panning up, a plane screeches across the sky announcing the updated setting. The film then cuts to an amusing scene where a group of young hip cats (led by the charismatic and aloof Johnny Alucard) have gate-crashed a party and are "terrorising" the owners in the most limp and middle-class way. Later on they talk of where the next far out thrill will come from when Johnny suggests a black mass. They all attend for kicks but get freaked out when Johnny seems to take it too seriously and wants Jessica (family name Van Helsing) played by Stephanie Beacham, to get involved. She declines but the Prince of Darkness is summoned with the aid of another girl and, awakened to the twentieth century, Dracula is out for revenge.

The film has been criticised by many as a failed attempt to desperately breathe life into the franchise, and while that charge can't be escaped, the conceit of the film to update Dracula is not a bad one. If anything, the failing of the film is that it didn't go far enough in its updating and still feels like the reserved period pieces which came before just in funky threads and platforms. What's more, director Alan Gibson (who would direct the next attempt to update Dracula with the much worse 'The Satanic Rites of Dracula') is no Terence Fisher and lacks the directorial subtleties which distinguish the earlier features. Still, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are sheer class, as always, and raise the film up a notch or two.

All told, it's a decent attempt, with some good moments, and manages to be fun ride. However, considering that 'The Exorcist' was around the corner, it's no surprise poor old Dracula couldn't cut it. Which is sad.

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

England's Hammer Studios did 9 Dracula or vampire films from 1958-1974:

1. Horror of Dracula (1958); 2. Brides of Dracula (1960); 3. Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966); 4. Dracula has Risen from the Grave (1968); 5. Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970); 6. Scars of Dracula (1970); 7. Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972); 8. The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973); and 9. The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974).

Christopher Lee plays the Count in all but "The Brides of Dracula" and "The Legend 7 Golden Vampires." Peter Cushing also stars in four entries as Van Helsing.

By the time of the seventh film the creative well was apparently running dry and Hammer decided to spice up the series by bringing the Count to present-day London (1972, of course), which was Hammer's response to other successful vampire films at the time taking place in the modern day, such as "The Night Stalker," "Blacula" and "Count Yorga." The story revolves around a group of hip counter-culture youths performing a black mass in an abandoned church for kicks (although the ringleader takes it serious) and they revive the blood-sucking prince of darkness. Havok ensues.

Peter Cushing appears as Van Helsing's descendant. Christopher Neame plays the nutjob who performs the black mass with utter relish. Also on hand are the stunning beauties Stephanie Beacham and Caroline Munro. Stephanie plays Van Helsing's daughter and Caroline has a small but significant role. There are a couple of other early-70s hippie babes as well.

The first half of the film borrows heavily from the previous "Taste the Blood of Dracula" in that the Count is resurrected in roughly the same manner, although "Taste" is more effective. Which isn't to say that "Dracula A.D. 1972" isn't a decent entry in the series, albeit bizarre. The main problem with the film is that the story doesn't seem to know what to do once Dracula is resurrected. For instance, Cushing's final battle with the Count is fairly lame for various reasons (I don't want to give anything away), not to mention Lee only appears for about 10 minute in the entire film, which is usual for the series, of course.

Another problem is the score. It screams "early 70s" in a bad way, but doesn't mesh with what is essentially a serious horror flick. Of course some would cite that as part of its charm. I said "serious horror flick, by the way, because this is not a goofy or campy flick despite the colorful hippie elements and lousy score.

What works best is that it's a great period piece. You'll get a groovy glimpse of England's counter-culture, including the hippie girls and a live performance by the band Stoneground (who didn't go anywhere beyond this movie, likely because their sound & style was already passe by 1972). So, the first half is fun and compelling, whereas the second half just sort of goes through the motions and peters out.

BOTTOM LINE: "Dracula A.D. 1972" is hard to rate because, despite the mediocre-ness of the story's second half, the film is a fun experience with numerous highlights. Hence, as a Dracula story I give it a C+, but for entertainment value I give it a solid B or B+.

The film runs 96 minutes and was shot in England.

GRADE: B-

I first saw this in the mid 90s on a vhs. Revisited it recently. This is the seventh installment in the Hammer's Dracula series and the sixth to star Christopher Lee as Dracula. Peter Cushing returns as Van Helsing for the second time after a long hiatus.

This time Dracula is brought back to life in modern London and preys on a group of young partygoers that includes the descendant of his nemesis, Van Helsing. So fans like me r disappointed cos ther is no castle, no chariots, no foggy village n forests.

The opening sequence of this movie completely contradicts with the ending of the previous one and so this is not a continuation but a standalone film. It contradicts many other aspects too from the series. I cant even say sit back n enjoy cos this one is a major disappointment with a haywired screenplay. We dont get to see the cleavage of the hot babe Caroline Munro from Sindbad but of Stephanie Beacham, which is also good.

Too many bad moments : In 1872 after Dracula's death, a follower of Dracula collects Dracula's remains and buries them near Van Helsing's grave. First, why wud he do that? Now in 1972, another follower of Dracula who resembles the earlier follower, somehow is able to revive Dracula by jus removing the stake. Man, how is it possible for the stake to be there on the grave intact aftr 100 years. No other people were buried? No change of land or mud filling? And more importantly, when the old follower buried Dracula's ashes, he never kept any stake or there weren't any on the Count's grave. From wher did the new disciple got the ashes n the ring aft hundred years? And why did the earlier follower of Dracula put the ashes inside the grave?

In the Nineteenth Century, Professor Lawrence Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) vanquishes, destroys Count Dracula (Christopher Lee) and dies. A rider keeps Dracula's dust in a vessel and his ring. In the present days (1972), in London, the mysterious rebel Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame) that worships Dracula lures his friends, including Jessica Van Helsing (Stephanie Beacham), and resurrects the vampire. Dracula plans to destroy Professor Abraham Van Helsing and his granddaughter Jessica to take revenge on their ancestor Van Helsing.

"Dracula A.D. 1972" is the seventh and the weakest Hammer's film of the famous vampire. Anyway, it is an entertaining with Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing and the gorgeous Stephanie Beacham in the lead roles. Further, this film is dated and nostalgic in 2017 when compared with the other Hammer films. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Drácula no Mundo da Minissaia" ("Dracula in the World of the Miniskirt")

An interesting entry into the series, but really, I feel there was still life in the 19th Century time frame. Bringing Dracula to the 70s was, I think a mistake. Christopher Lee seems to be mostly forgotten and never gets the opportunity to get out and do what he does best. He remains in an old disused church for the whole film and only has a few decent scenes. We have Peter Cushing here, of course, playing an excellent part as Van Helsing, which somewhat saves the film. Decent portrayals by Lee, Cushing, Beacham, Munroe and Neame are worth watching. The 2 best things about this movie are , 1, the opening. Hyde Park, and Dracula and Van Helsing and racing through on a horse drawn carriage battling it out. The carriage crashes and they are both thrown. Van Helsing recieving fatal wounds and Dracula impaled on a broken wheel. Pretty good stuff, although not enough lighting was used so the carriage top battle and following events are rather hard to see. 2, the finale. As Van Helsing plans to destroy Dracula he drives a silver bladed knife through the Count's heart, only to be removed by his Granddaughter Jessica. Van Helsing then lures Dracula out to his death. The first few moments between Lee and Cushing in this final battle are classic, and for the first time in the series history, the 2 main characters speak to each other. The film is worth a look, if you`re a fan of modern horror then Lee and Cushing will seem a little lost, but if you`re a fan of the old Hammer Dracula films, take a look, with the beginning and the end, you just might like it.

For the sixth film in the hugely popular Dracula series, Hammer have opted to keep the story seen in the other five films relatively similar to usual - i.e. Dracula gets resurrected, goes on the rampage and then gets defeated again, but this time the action has been moved away from the staple Gothic settings of the earlier films and into a more contemporary setting - namely, swinging 70's London! The problem with Hammer's Dracula series is that they're all a bit similar, so this new setting has injected some much needed new blood into the series, and while this effort is patchy and more than a little messy - on the whole I rate this as one of the best of the series and a huge treat for Hammer fans! This entry in the series is also notable for the fact that the two main stars of the original are together again in a Dracula film for the first time since then. Seeing Christopher Lee as Dracula is always a treat, but it's even more so when you've got Peter Cushing as Van Helsing in the same movie!

As the story has been brought forward a few centuries, Cushing now stars as a descendant of his original character while Lee still takes up the role of the immortal count. Both of these great actors do their usual thing, and it's great to see two men enjoying their craft. As usual, Lee doesn't get all that much screen time; but every moment he's on screen is excellent, and many of the Dracula scenes in this movie are among the best of the series. Keeping in with their usual thing, the majority of the cast is made up of unknowns; but this time there's a big stand out - Christopher Neame in the role of Dracula's disciple; Johnny Alucard (Dracula spelt backwards!). Neame is gloriously over the top and his performance is another delight in this already delightful movie. The ending is a little bit disappointing, as it's all over so quickly but it hardly matters by the end as for the last ninety minutes you've been watching one of the most camp and outrageous horror films that Hammer ever produced. Don't listen to the negative vibes surrounding this movie - if you're a Hammer fan, you'll be right at home.

An attempt to corner a new market by Hammer. Starts promisingly with references to London and a generation clash as the central characters disrupt a cheese and wine evening . Looked on by their horrified elders they cause mayhem with their new music and wacky clothing which now look all dated and laughable. The resurrection of Dracula is th most impressive part of the film and has been reused regularly in stills footage. The modern settings leave scriptwriters uncertain where to progress next and a desperate Van Helsing searching for his niece is wasted in poor lighting & lack of dialogue. Take the opportunity to enjoy 70s interior decor throughout much of the film. The finale is worth watching alone. Colour's a bit garish but seeing Cushing recite a piece of melancholic Latin is a pleasure we never saw enough of. Watch beginning and end, don't bother with the middle & start your own satanic cult from the black mass scenes. Sects have done that.

Good grief! Hammer Horror Films were very much in a flux come 1972, so in a bold (yet ultimately ill conceived) attempt to move with the times and grasp a new audience, they turned to old faithful to resurrect their hopes - Count Dracula. Pic starts with an exciting prologue in 1872, where we see Dracula (Christopher Lee) and Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) battling to the death. We witness Drac's ashes buried near to the grave of Helsing, and then it's fast forward to 1972...

It must have seemed like a good idea at the time - letting loose one of the most iconic monsters in movie history in contemporary London - but it never works, lacking horror vibrancy and very much coming off as a pastiche of former glory. A rather excellent resurrection section of film aside, pic is just too quirky and kitsch for its own good, more laughable than anything remotely scary.

Other major problems hurt the possibility of enjoying it on some sort of parodic level. Dracula never actually does much, confined to a small location (again!), so not really tearing up contemporary London as it happens, while the 1972 "youths" who form the core of the narrative are actually out of date themselves! Something further compounded by the quite dreadful musical score, which should have been confined in a locked safe a decade earlier. Some of the more notable Hammer touches try to battle there way through the murk, but it's a losing battle, the company's visual identity lost amongst a daft script and cartoonish direction.

It has fans, and viewing it now some decades later one can at least embrace it with a modicum of endearment, but it's a poor pic and signals the start of a sad era for a great production company. 4/10

Is there really such a thing as movies that are "so-bad-they're good"? Usually, I'd answer no to that question; bad is bad, and good is good, and I prefer to watch stuff that's good. However, "Dracula A.D. 1972" might be the exception to my rule. It could very well be a one-star film that contains about three stars of entertainment value (at a generous estimate).

In case you didn't know, this is the sixth entry in Hammer Studios' Dracula series - but it's only the second Hammer film to feature both Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. For that reason alone, this is mandatory viewing for horror fans - though it is a little depressing to see the two cult stars reunited in this somewhat lame vehicle, fourteen years after they made the legendary (and far superior) "Horror of Dracula" together.

Somehow, Lee always seems to get more press than Cushing, but in truth I've always preferred Cushing. Lee does nothing in these Dracula films but stalk around and look menacing; he speaks about 10 lines total in this particular movie, and never leaves his ruined church set. Cushing, meanwhile, gives his usual warm and endearing performance, and he basically carries the whole movie. He's class, whereas the rest of the production is decidedly crass.

The rest of the actors are a mixed bag. Christopher Neame is over-the-top and a little annoying as Dracula's henchman, though I guess he projects an appropriate aura of sleaziness. Stephanie Beacham does well with the thankless (as usual) role of Hammer heroine, and looks unbelievably hot in her standard-issue, low-cut Hammer gown. Caroline Munro is also lovely in this movie, though under-used; they should have let her become a vampire, right?

The plot is pretty routine. This movie was supposed to "update" the Dracula series, but the lord of the vampires ends up engaging in his usual shtick of biting young girls and hanging around in a cemetery, so this really feels like business-as-usual. Only in the seventh and final film in the series would Hammer make a serious effort to tinker with their Dracula formula.

So what's the final verdict? This is great, if you have a taste for camp. It's great, if you're in the mood for ineptitude. And Peter Cushing actually is great, as usual.

I'll end by quoting one of Dracula's lines in this movie. Toward the end, he says something to Van Helsing along the lines of: "You would pit your brains against mine? Against me, who has commanded nations?" This line always makes me smile, in light of what happens in the next five minutes of the movie. Watch it and you'll see what I mean...

The idea of bringing Dracula to contemporary times isn't bad--after all, it might revive the series a bit by injecting a new story element into a series that Hammer has all but exhausted in a long series of generally excellent movies. However, because the present day turned out to be the crappy early 1970s, the results were pretty silly and looked more like LOVE AT FIRST BITE (a deliberate comedy). Seeing Christopher Lee in a film filled with 70s hip lingo and electric guitar chords and laughable rock music just seemed beyond stupid. To make matters worse, the acting is much more over-the-top here--with an intense and silly performance by "Johnny Alucard". I also thought it was really funny that it took Van Helsing's grandson to notice that "Alucard" is "Dracula" spelled backwards--no one else figured this out for themselves! Wow, what cunning!!

So because so much of the movie was bad, why did it still earn an almost respectable score of 4? Well, when the story came to the expected showdown between Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) and Drac (Christopher Lee), it was exciting and ended very well. Additionally, and I know this will sound very sexist, but if I had to watch a bad film, at least Stephanie Beacham's character wore some really nice outfits that revealed her ample...."talents", so to speak. So at least it was a pretty film to watch.

By the way, the film ends with the phrase "may he rest in FINAL peace" at the end, though this was not the final Hammer Dracula film with Lee. He returned for "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" just a short time later and it was in many ways even worse than this dud of a monster film.

Been reading the other comments of this film For some reason over the years various film critics and horror film book authors have been unjustly mean to this film. I mean you have Peter and Christopher together which is always a good start. A couple of smashing birds ( note the 70's lingo ) in Stephanie Beacham and Marsha Hunt and an absolute corker in the very sexy Caroline Munro ( who of course also advertised Lamb's Navy Rum , did a Bond Movie and perhaps the pinnacle of her career appeared as one of the hostesses with Ted Rogers and Dusty Bin on 3 2 1 ) I love the music too all very 70's. Christopher Neame's death scene was superb as was the final fight between Pete and Chris ( with that crazy 70's music once again ) is very well staged. Although Mr. Cushing looks as he's going to collapse going up and down those spiral steps.

The hilarious 70's costumes on the blokes look like they might have once belonged to Richard O'Sullivan in Man About the House. One chap spends the whole film dressed as some kind of 'kinky' monk.

The crazy 70's lingo is very funny and the group at the beginning at the party 'Stoneground ' well I'm just lost for words.

All in all I think this film is an absolute corker. If you haven't seen ignore the negative comments sit down and enjoy it.

I think it's a corker.

You really can't blame Hammer studios for trying to do something different with their long-running Dracula franchise by the early '70s. This film has its share of detractors and most of those slam it because it feels "dated" to them, or because the legendary Count seems oddly out of place amongst all those groovy "modern-day" hipsters, man. For me, the trouble with "Dracula A.D. 1972" has nothing to do with its welcome new setting -- after all, if we accept that Dracula is a supernatural being who can sustain himself throughout the ages, why wouldn't that also include his living amongst us during the late 20th century? -- but unfortunately, the problem is that very little is done to take full advantage of the circumstances.

The movie opens with a spectacular prologue set in the 1800's where a runaway horse-drawn carriage races through a shaded forest with two figures atop it, fighting hand-to-hand: Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) and the vampire king himself, Count Dracula (Christopher Lee). In the midst of their struggle, the wagon crashes into a tree and is demolished. But the wise vampire hunter manages to grab a broken cart wheel and thrusts its wooden spoke into Dracula's chest, killing his enemy and reducing him to ashes. Van Helsing himself lives just long enough to witness Dracula's decay before succumbing to his death. But no sooner has the world become better off, when a young disciple of the Count (Christopher Neame) arrives at the scene to secure Dracula's remains in a vial.

We then leap to London "today" (meaning 1972, that is) where the disciple, now referred to as "Johnny Alucard" (cute), heads a naive young group of thrill-seeking teens (or twenty-somethings). They've tried everything they can think of for kicks, like crashing high society parties unannounced where they can boogey to the mod sounds of the performing rock group Stoneground (who do two songs). Alucard's latest scheme is to involve his gang in a devilish black mass. Gathering the guys and gals together inside the ruins of an old church, Alucard performs a satanic ritual which resurrects Dracula once more, and this time one of the naive chicks who is first to fall victim to him is raven-haired Caroline Munro. But Alucard and Dracula are more interested in corrupting Jessica (Stephanie Beacham), the blonde member of their little circle, who happens to be the great-granddaughter of the original professor. She is currently living with her grandfather (again played by Cushing) who himself is the descendant of the first Van Helsing, as well as being skilled in the black arts. He is a great asset to Scotland Yard when the mysterious murders start piling up, though much of the dull stretches in the movie lie within tiresome scenes of Cushing meeting with police investigators, and it's usually a challenge for me to remain alert for them any time I watch this.

It's never a bad thing to see Cushing and Lee in another film together, and they do get to shine in an updated climax where Dracula even gets to roar classic lines straight out of Bram Stoker's novel. Lee looks great as the count and he's magnificently ruthless in the few treasured scenes he has. But it's a pity that the filmmakers opted to keep Dracula confined to his claustrophobic quarters at the dilapidated church; he is never scene venturing anywhere else, so one then wonders what was the point of going through all the trouble of setting the story in modern society! The "20th century face lift" worked much better in other horror films of this era like COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE (1970) and BLACULA(1972). Though there are some moments to be savored with A.D. '72, this is somewhat of a missed opportunity and arguably the nadir of Hammer's Dracula series. **1/2 out of ****

Film starts off great in 1872 with a violent, bloody fight between Dracula (Christopher Lee) and van Helsing (Peter Cushing). Dracula is impaled and dissolves to dust--van Helsing also dies. Somebody gathers Dracula's ashes and buries them in the grounds of a church. Cut to 1972--here's where the film falls apart.

We are instantly hit over the head with loud, bad 70s music, HORRIBLE fashions and silly dialogue. When this was made Hammer was losing money and decided to try anything to get a hit. Putting Dracula in the 1970s was NOT a good idea. The fashions, music and dialogue date the movie horribly. We're introduced to a bunch of annoying kids in their 20s who decide to have a Black Mass--"for a giggle". Naturally they have it at the church (now abandoned) and naturally revive Dracula. It's a good thing a descendant of van Helsing is around...but Dracula goes after his niece (Stephanie Beacham) in revenge.

Lee and Cushing are great as always in their roles and whenever they're on screen the movie gets a much-needed shot of energy. The opening and ending battles are the highlights of the film (although the ending is spoiled a lot by playing lousy 70s music). Also the main ringleader of the kids is named Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame)--a truly stupid name that dates back to the 1940s. The film also has scream queen Caroline Munro looking absolutely great. The film is well-directed and pretty well-acted but the plot is stupid, the constant barrage of 70s fashion, dialogue and music gets annoying real quick and I was basically bored silly.

Most Hammer fans agree--this was one of the worst Dracula movies--it's followup (Satantic Rites of Dracula) was THE worst--and the last Hammer Dracula film. This gets a 2--just for Cushing and Lee.