Dominion – review

Director: Todd Sheets

Release Date: 1992

Contains spoilers

As this started, the first thing I thought was ‘wow, this is a sh*t video transfer.’ The fact that the “Decrepit Crypt of Nightmares” DVD set lists this as 2004 doesn’t help with the feeling, as this was obviously shot on an old school video recorder and one wonders why it wasn’t shot on digi-cam at least – then we discover it was really shot some 12 years before the listing. Doesn’t stop it looking like crap but it explains a lot.

The film begins with a young girl, Elizabeth, with her journal. Hopefully she was reading her journal, which told the tale of how her brother Cabal (Stefan Hilt) vanished some three weeks before, as she certainly wasn’t writing in it – not the way in which her pen floated above the paper and waved around in some bizarre arcane way.

Anyway, Cabal then appears at the window and… you know what we suddenly realise we are watching a poorly shot rip off of one of the seminal scenes in ’Salem’s Lot. We also note that neither child involved can act and that the lack of atmosphere is not helped by the sub-Carpenter synth soundtrack. Cabal asks to be let in – he needs an invitation (remember that, we’ll talk continuity soon enough) – and she produces a cross. He might have flung his arms up in horror, for all we know, as they don’t bother with a reaction shot.

Cue credits and, bizarrely, we actually get a more atmospheric soundtrack (for a while at least) – musical boxes (or synth equivalents) always add a level of creep. Anyway, the film restarts and we see the journal being put in a case with a cross and some stakes by a grandmotherly looking lady who, it turns out, is Elizabeth (Carol Barta).

The police have a problem. Detectives Roger Williams (Frank Dunlay) and Stan Lotus (Charles Monroe) have a spate of killings (13 to be precise) and all the victims have lacerated throats and the blood is gone. Hanging around is rookie Clarence (Auggi Alvarez) – a guy with great academy test results… whatever. Stan actually mentions vampires but is clear to state that he means someone who thinks he is.

When another body shows up, Elizabeth appears and clues them in. There is a sub-story featuring Beth (Julia Anne Clark) and her god-bothering step-mom (Dana Pace), which goes nowhere – except that Beth wants to see the band Enochian Key – which pigs mom off and happens to be a vampire front.

Cabal has a plan. He is going to resurrect the head vampire Enoch by hanging him on a cross at the concert, locking the doors, killing everyone and then resurrecting him in the sea of blood. Problem… there are about 12 people at the concert (when we get to it), no-one locks the doors and they all escape. It is a huge plot point not used and plagued with gaping continuity and this is a problem all the way through.

For instance, the cops go in an abandoned subway/sewer and are attacked. Somehow Williams has taken a stake with him (he doesn’t believe in vampires) and stakes one of them. Later a victim rises in front of Clarence and the cops suddenly believe in Elizabeth’s story but seemed to have ignored the evidence from their sewer trip.

When going to the concert they enter (they being Clarence, Williams, Elizabeth and retired cop Jack Sheppard (Emmett Brennan) who is there with the promise of some wrinkly romance with old friend Elizabeth) and are attacked. Elizabeth has to then go out of the building again and get her vampire hunting case (why not take the case or the contents with them in the first instance?), drops it in the ‘lobby’ and then suddenly has it with her on the stage! Incidentally Cabal needed inviting in to enter his erstwhile home but two vampire prostitutes are able to enter someone’s home sans invite.

The vampires fear the cross as it is a symbol of good and love and caring and what they can never retrieve in their lives and yet use a cross on stage. Crosses working because vampires are evil and the cross is a symbol of divinity blessed by a priest as a servant of God I can handle, simply working because the wielder has faith in that symbol I can handle and working because of a reaction to Euclidean Geometry I can handle. This didn’t work – at all.

The vampires feeding pattern is more akin to a zombie, ripping and tearing at flesh in good old Romero style. I can handle that and yet there was a credit for a person who either bought or made the fangs… what fangs? Actually, we see fangs later in a post-script that was entirely without plot connection. Some vampires rot when staked, others just vanish. Indeed staking works because of the damage caused to the heart and the fact that the stake stays there – a bullet passes through and so the vampire heals. Now I am no gun expert but even I know there is ammunition design to expand on impact and not pass through the body – by the film’s own rules this sort of ammo should work, especially as a chainsaw in the chest seems to work also.

The video transfer looks awful and is totally washed out (and glitchy in places). There is no point in showing blood on snow when the blood is a (very) few black specks. Indeed there is little point in having extended driving scenes when it is clear that the car is stationary, there is no external reference, the actor is moving the wheel haphazardly and it is clear the car is being rocked to simulate movement.

It is rare that I look at a bad movie and think I could do better. I clearly could not in most cases; I have not the temperament, money or artistic edge for visual media. In this case I could – I’d have at least ensured that the plot made sense and the gaping continuity that appeared in a 67 minute film was not quite so apparent.

Rubbish. 0 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

30 Days of Night: Beyond Barrow – review

Written by: Steve Niles

Illustrated by: Bill Sienkiewicz

First published: 2008

Contains spoilers

The ninth graphic novel set in the 30 Days of Night universe goes back into the frozen wastes and features recurring characters Marcus Kitka, who first appeared in 30 Days of Night: Return to Barrow and is now 17, and John Ikos. It also introduces a whole new set of characters primarily adventurer billionaire Richard Denning and his entourage.

Denning has gone to Barrow, though his primary aim is to remain outside the town’s barricade in order that he can find himself a vampire. However, before he arrives we see a group of vampires ignoring sense and instruction and aiming to get to Barrow. We also see that they meet a sticky end and not at the hands of vampire hunters.

Niles introduces a new concept within this, a creature seemingly evolved from the vampire and adapted over the centuries to the cold, artic weather. These creatures – Unnuar Amarok, in Inuit – seem utterly alien and manage to strike fear into the hearts of the normal vampires. I would be interested to discover more about them, at this point we know that they can become perfectly still, appearing to be rock, are cave dwellers and, it seems, have their own language.

You might recall me complaining about the vampires having a different language in the 30 Days movie. However, with these creatures it seems to work. Perhaps it is because they are so alien, so evolved (or devolved even) from the vampiric norm that they have lost all semblance of humanity. Perhaps it is because there was no subtitling of their language, which increased the feeling that they were so different to anything we have come across before in the series, and so their remoteness remained intact.

Of course, fresh human feed wandering through the wastes brings the Unnuar Amarok out and into the path of the rather foolish billionaire.

Artwork wise I was rather impressed. Sienkiewicz’ style is very different to that which has gone before in the series but it really works rather well, almost pastel with vivid colouring, the stylisation adds a level of artic confusion to the proceedings that only adds to the experience. I really hope that he is commissioned for more work on the series.

Again, story wise, this is rather simple and very much survival horror, but the beautiful artwork combined with the very new concepts served to make this rather worthwhile.

Many thanks to my lovely wife who purchased this volume for me.

7 out of 10.

A candle in the Dark – review

Directed by: Richard Poche

Release date: 2002

Contains spoilers

This is a tough one to review being a short film (35 minutes) and of an obviously low budget. It is the sort of thing I’d like to have stumbled across as a freebie as it would have received an ‘honourable mention’ but as it is commercially available (I have it in the ‘Decrepit Crypt of Nightmares’ set), I am forced to review it. In comparison to some other films of this budget/quality it does have something going for it. It also has a lot of minus points – not least of all the lighting, which is poor throughout.

We start of in a police cell and a man, we later discover to be Luke (Cliff Poche), is being interviewed about a series of disappearances/murders on the college campus. He talks about the murder of Wendy (Shelby Barendrick), one of the first to go. We hear his explanation as we see her plight inter-cut. He says that *they* sense fear, that *they* can be hurt by conventional means but it takes longer – if a single bullet would drop a human then it might need seven to deal with one of *them*.

The story then concentrates on Sarah (Kirstin McLaughlin), a college student who is with her friend Allison (Kirsten Finkas). Sarah is moving to college and Allison is helping with the move. We note that Allison’s concerns are with the normal things in life – boyfriend trouble at this point – but Sarah seems distracted by maudlin thoughts.

In the house we see Sarah put a cross up as she gets her gear unpacked and then the two girls hear the news and the reports of the murder of Wendy – someone Sarah knew. Suddenly the lights go out – Sarah has been warned about rolling blackouts – but the door handle starts to turn. There is some panic, thoughts of calling the cops and then a woman comes in and introduces herself as Lilith (Alexandra Ackerman), Sarah’s roommate.

The two girls seem very different; Lilith seems a little Goth and does not have too much compassion for what happened to Wendy. Sarah is religious, regularly going to a bible group and concerned that Lilith wears clothing of too sluttish a style (they looked rather conservative to me). The cross from Sarah’s room vanishes and she accuses Lilith of removing it. When Lilith goes out she searches for the cross in Lilith’s room but does not find it. She does find pictures of herself and all her friends. Lilith seems sensitive to sunlight and Sarah recognises a lighter in Lilith’s possession belonged to a security guard named Frank (Joe Costales), who has been murdered.

Sarah dreams. In her dream she is reciting the 23rd psalm. She sees Luke enter into a mausoleum and follows. Eventually she catches up with him and Lilith is with him, Lilith bites his neck. Sarah wakes up screaming and Lilith is stood above her, claiming she heard the sounds of a bad dream. Later Lilith explains that she isn’t coming home that evening but when Sarah rifles through her room again she finds a note saying ‘stay out of my stuff’.

With another friend murdered, Sarah researches vampires. We see her looking at ‘Salem’s Lot, reading up on Draculea, Báthory and the mythological Lilith. We hear her say that symbols of faith only work if the wielder believes. There is obviously at least one vampire out there; is it Lilith and is she alone?

The film does well, story wise, with what it has but there are some aspects that are just too curtailed due to the running length. There are other aspects that seem muddled and unexplained, plus I noticed at least one dialogue continuity error. This error was minor, in the grand scheme of things, but noticeable and thus sloppy.

The acting is actually quite alright for what the film is. There is a large amount of dialogue – it is very talky in places, and it feels fairly natural. It is not the best I have ever seen, by a long shot, but given the inexperienced level of cast and crew any issues are forgivable. ‘Enthusiastic amateurs’ was the phrase that sprang to mind.

The film does play with expectations, in the finale, but it is too short to really explore that aspect in as much depth as I would have liked. All in all it isn’t too bad an effort compared to many of the straight to video efforts; however it isn’t great cinema either – not by a very long shot. A crash course in lighting is definitely needed and the sound mix is off with soundtrack overpowering dialogue in places. Some of the scene set ups were corny. Free on the net I’d be saying watch it, parting with money for it is another matter.

I vacillated between giving this a score of 2 and a score of 3. 3 felt too high, to be perfectly honest, and yet 2 seemed awfully cruel. In the end I decided to sit on the fence and go for 2.5 out of 10. Interesting but very flawed.

The imdb page is here.

New Show: The Last Van Helsing

Just picked up on this one, currently filming 6, 60 minute episodes. The title is a working title, more as I find it.

Music: She wants Revenge

I was e-mailed about this lot and the video to “Written in Blood” specifically. Now I hadn’t come across them before but they are rather good, as you can hear for yourself on their MySpace page. I’d say primarily post-punk, Written in Blood has somewhat (to me) a Sisters of Mercy overtone.

As for that track, well the video is of interest to this page as it is clearly a stylised lift of the opening to The Hunger. You can Judge for yourselves but, please be aware, whilst there is no nudity there is certainly a sexual overtone to the vid (note embedding has been disabled, the link takes you to YouTube).

30 Days of Night: Red Snow – review

Written by: Ben Templesmith

Illustrated by: Ben Templesmith

First published: 2008

Contains spoilers

The eighth graphic novel set in the 30 Days of Night universe is somewhat of a departure as it goes back in time to the Second World War and, as such, is fairly stand alone.

Of course the concept of vampires in World War Two, specifically stationed on the Eastern Front, is nothing new. 2000AD had a comic strip based on just this premise and that was turned into a novel trilogy called Fiends of the Eastern Front. Regular readers will recall that I was less than impressed with the novels.

This succeeds were the 2000 AD novels failed. The story in itself is simple, British military attaché Corporal Charlie Keating is sent as an observer to the Red Army, a posting deemed appropriate as he has a fully working knowledge of both Russian and German languages. The squad he is with come under attack by an SS squad, who in turn come under attack by vampires. The two warring factions must put their difference aside in order to survive the vampiric onslaught.

Thereafter it is pretty much survival horror and the whole thing rockets along nicely. The fact that Templesmith illustrated the story meant that we knew that visually the graphic was going to work. The simple and yet tight little story, with worthwhile characterisation, proved that Templesmith is more than just a good artist and cemented, for me, his credibility as a writer also.

Many thanks to Ian, who got me both this volume and 30 Days of Night: Eben & Stella.

A very worthy addition to the 30 Days cannon. 8 out of 10.

Vamp or Not? The Curse of the Crying Woman

This 1961 Mexican horror, directed by Rafael Baledón, was mentioned on the blog by Derek when I posted about the Dark Waters DVD set. One of the things that attracted me to the film was the description of it as a Mexican re-write of Black Sunday. Now, I adore Black Sunday and I can, to be fair, see why that comparison would be drawn. However, I would say that it was only on a superficial level. Indeed the film is rather referential to several films and genre staples.

Obviously I felt there was enough about the film to warrant a ‘Vamp or Not?’, or you wouldn’t be reading this, despite the fact that the main basis for the film is the legend of La Llorona – the titular crying woman who is the ghost of a woman, wailing for her dead children and is kind of a Mexican banshee, in some respects. Our film begins with a coach travelling along a road, two men and a girl on board.

The coach halts as a scarred man, we later discover to be named Juan (Carlos López Moctezuma), attacks the coachman, throwing a dagger into his chest. The passengers disembark and Juan leaps onto one of them, throttling the poor man. We also see a woman, Selma (Rita Manedo), holding the leash of three dogs and releasing them to get the second man. The girl faints.

Let us look at Selma for a moment, for she is very striking. Her eyes are large, almond shaped and pure black. One could almost liken them to the eyes of a modern grey alien. They offer a truly creepy visage. When the two men are dead Juan whips the horse and the coach runs over the girl. It is a wonderfully creepy, violent opening and suggests that the film intends to take no prisoners.

In Selma’s hacienda she is visited by a police captain (Mario Sevilla), who is enquiring whether she heard anything in respects of the attack. She claims she did not and wonders if an animal attacked, and we should note that her eyes are, now, normal. The Captain points out that an animal would not dry up (as the subtitles put it) every drop of a victim’s blood nor would they use a knife.

Outside we hear the police talk and they make mention of the death of Selma's husband, Dr Daniel Jaramillo (Enrique Lucero), and that she is in the house on her own but we know it is not true as Juan is there. Selma is expecting the arrival of her niece Amelia (Rosa Arenas). Cutting to a carriage we see that Amelia is with her husband Jaime (Abel Salazar) and we discover that it is the eve of her birthday.

When Amelia arrives she is told that her aunt will not be here until the evening. Her room’s mirror is covered and, when she uncovers it, she sees a black eyed woman and then a corpse’s rotten face – causing her much distress as you can imagine. She and Jaime also hear wailing from upstairs but Juan refuses to allow them access to that area of the house.

The scene in which we see Selma arrive is wonderful. We see a corpse like thing fly into the cellar area, straight to camera. It becomes, off camera, Selma. In the cellar is a blackened corpse, run through by a spear, which Selma refers to as the ‘distinguished lady of darkness’. Later we discover that this is Marina – the crying woman. Held in a semblance of half life and, it would seem, mother to Selma. Amelia is fated through a curse to restore her life.

So far we have a corpse like being with weird eyes, bodies drained of blood and an avoidance of daylight. The last point is a red herring as Selma is unavailable because she is caring for Marina. We discover that Selma has kept Marina in her state of undeath (as it were) by feeding her immortality through the blood of the descendants of the jury that condemned Marina.

The curse is already part of Amelia and a comment is made that soon her blood will disappear from her veins and she’ll need blood from another source. We see her tempted when Jaime cuts his hand and we see her fly into a rage at a passer by who will not help her and her eyes turning black at that point, like her aunt. We discover that the spear through Marina is actually straight through her heart and must be removed during the tolling of midnight on the turning of the youngest descendant’s twenty-fifth birthday. Restoration of Marina will offer the women immortality, indeed Selma has not aged since Amelia was sent away as a child.

One of the bigger vampiric traits is in the fact that Selma casts no reflection in a mirror, something that the film shows us clearly. Later, as she succumbs, Amelia’s reflection begins to fade also. I said that the film gathers many influences and is referential, however. At one point we see Selma walk through a cobweb and not disturb it. This was clearly reminiscent of Dracula (1931).

Daniel is not dead either. He is kept locked away more beast than man. What happened to him, we do not know and although he is not quite there I couldn’t but help be reminded of the Wolf Man (in a mystical scene, which outlines Marina's history, we seem to see a werewolf figure as well). We get a moment of crap bat syndrome, strangely as there seems to be no connection with the crying woman myth in the film or generally.

We also see Selma use a fetish to control Jaime at one point, giving a voodoo tint to the proceedings. This is tied into a more genre normal moment of eye mojo. There is also a moment that is reminiscent of Poe and, perhaps, The Fall of the House of Usher. Despite the influences, however, this does hang together as a film in its own right.

It is a good film, though not as strong (or as atmospheric) as Black Sunday (or the Mexican flick El Vampiro for that matter) but it is certainly worth your time and effort (and so, many thanks to Derek for bringing it to my attention). I would also say that, despite the non-vampiric myth it is based on and the unusual premise around the lore, it deserves a place on vampire filmographies. It even has a vampire standard corruption of a corpse, quickly rotting to dust.

Incidentally there is a wonderful booklet that outlines the legend of La Llorona and her appearance in movies. I have the latest movie it lists (though I haven’t seen it yet and I believe it is most definitely not vamp and rather poor to boot) but even more special is the fact that Santo once met her – I must see that at some point.

The imdb page is here.

30 Days of Night: Eben & Stella - review

Written by: Steve Niles & Kelly Sue DeConnick

Illustrated by: Justin Randall

First Published: 2007

Contains spoilers

Eben and Stella is the seventh graphic novel release from the 30 Days of Night series and is a step back in time for fans of the series. It chronicles the events between the end of Dark Days and 30 Days of Night: Return to Barrow, specifically around what occurred after Stella was bitten by the resurrected Eben and how they ended up back at Barrow.

The story itself is okay, with a newly introduced piece of lore surrounding the oldest of the vampires – which I won’t spoil further – plus introducing a new human character, Alice, a woman from a long line of vampire hunters.

The artwork works well enough, though I felt that was perhaps a little lack of distinction between the primary female characters visually. However, the biggest problem with the graphic was that whilst it filled in the blanks for fans of the series it felt as though there wasn’t that much there to keep a new reader interested. The over-arching story was functional but, in the end, didn’t really go anywhere.

To be fair, it is always difficult when we already know the beginning and end of the story, but the middle (in other words, the new material) maintained a solidity storywise and yet it ultimately proved itself to be nothing really special. Alice's presence served to be little more than a cipher for the story and I felt more could have been done with her and her husband.

Never-the-less, interesting enough for those of us with a series investment and it opens a new thread, with the oldest of vampires, that can (and needs to be) explored in more detail in the future. 6 out of 10.

Honourable Mentions – Hell & Eden

Hell & Eden represents poetess and self-styled vampire queen Rosie Lugosi’s first collection of poetry and was printed in 1997. Many thanks to Leila, from whom this was a gift.

Unlike the collection of Rosie’s work that I previously looked at, creatures of the night, there is little of Rosie’s trade mark wicked humour in this volume. This is a volume of more serious poetry, many of the poems taking the theme of fairy tales and using that to explore levels of sexuality and psyche.

Within the volume is the poem “Vampire” and I offer you a short quote from within:

“I slept tiny and curled, quiet in the folds of your skirt
as above me
you ripped out the throats of those who’d harm me’”

Rosie weaves a dark dream around us, through the volume, and it is a nice counter-balance to the later collection.

I Dream of Dracula – review

Director: Jim Haggerty

Release date: 2003

Contains spoilers

I Dream of Dracula is listed as a comedy horror. Now I know that, of all the filmic art forms, comedy is the most subjective but I really failed to see the humour in this one. Toupee gags and fart sounds just do not make me laugh, at least not in the way they were done in this movie… sad but true. Comedy also needs a little thing called comic timing, but we’ll get to the acting shortly.

I should mention that, despite the title, Dracula is not in this.

The opening credits have a slow, maudlin keyboard over black and white shots of a forest. It might have been moody but the music captured little atmosphere. We then go into a silent (dialogue wise) black and white sequence of a woman, Prunella Wandenburg (Michellina Shaffranski), walking through the woods in period dress. She meets her husband but is observed by two black clad women (whose dress isn’t exactly period). They hug and then she bites him. At first she seems shocked but then, with fangs out, she lunges…

A scream resounds as Priscilla (also Michellina Shaffranski) awakens from her dream. Her husband Roger (Jae Mosc) seems sickly sweet concerned about her bad dreams and suggests that she talks to Jeanette (Maria Bolaris) – Priscilla’s best friend and, handily, a shrink. Priscilla is opposed to the idea but then agrees. Roger goes back to sleep – cue unfunny snore and fart joke with sound effects obviously adding in post production.

Jeanette is the most unsympathetic shrink ever, it would seem. She refuses to indulge the vampire fantasy and starts mentioning underlying psychotic tendencies. Roger speaks to her alone and it becomes all too apparent that he and Jeanette are having an affair. They plan to have Priscilla declared insane, siphon her funds, Roger divorce her and get together. At this point we should discuss the acting. Firstly, the dialogue is awful but it is not as bad as the acting. There is an earnestness to the performances but that does not translate into a good performance at all – we are talking sub-school play.

Cut to Mrs Lynley (Anastasia Bosakowski-Chater) who faints and then starts declaring to her husband (Gareth Chater) that the devil and his incubus are coming for them. Mrs Lynley spends most of the film raving unconvincingly about evil or (much more convincingly) puking and is the reincarnation of a vampire hunter.

We get a gratuitous sub-story of a woman and her fiancée, Gunnar (Jim Haggerty), who split up because he has slept with her whole family (sister, cousin, Grandmother, mother and, it is clearly hinted, father). He leaves and they are individually stalked by the two vampire women, played by Jenna King and Spike. This is a cue for gratuitous nudity – think Female Vampire without Franco’s ‘artistic integrity’.

Anyhoo, Pricilla gets a book from the library – given by one of the vampires – which is a handwritten account of her ancestor Prunella. She discovers more about vampires but with the vampires trying to seduce her to their way of life and her husband and best friend plotting against her, will she survive?

The vampire lore is a little unusual. They are a different species, immortal, stronger, blood-drinking and with magical powers. They intermingled with humanity and thus those like Priscilla are born vampires but do not know it. They must choose to be vampires. It was a muddled lore and not very convincing, especially as Satan (Paul Doughery) was included in the mix leaving an unsatisfying blend of natural lore with supernatural lore.

They cast reflections, daywalk and must kill their mortal love to achieve their biological heritage. They are killed by stake and then vanish into thin air. There is also a sub-conspiracy about vampires having to sacrifice vampires every 130 years to the aforementioned Satan, though why this should be the case isn’t clear.

The whole thing is digital camera shot and the fangs weren’t that great as they were clearly of a different colour to the natural teeth – something born of budget, however the actresses found that their speech was impeded by the fangs also – something that regular readers will know bugs me. That said the blood looked rather good for a film of this budget.

This is not a great film. The acting was poor and, as a result, the comic timing sucked. The dialogue was poor also. Yet, as I said, there was an earnestness within it – misplaced but noteworthy. Still 1 out of 10 is about all I can muster and that comes from the fact that I believe those involved were truly trying to achieve something, no matter how misguided they might have been.

The imdb page is here.

Guess what Happened to Count Dracula – review

Directors: Mario d’Alcala & Laurence Merrick

Release date: 1971

Contains spoilers


So, what did happen to Count Dracula? In truth this movie does not tell us. There are folks who will tell you that he changed his name to Count Adrian (Des Roberts) and moved to the US, escaping the communist regime of Romania. They’d be wrong. The movie clearly tells us that Count Adrian is the son of Count Dracula and not the Count himself. It, in truth, never mentions Dracula again – though Alucard comes into it late on.

What it does, however, is create a hippy trippy movie that mildly succeeds despite itself. It is a bit of a mess and yet the lighting works occasionally (despite the poor transfer). The acting ranges from very poor to absolute pantomime and yet the characters are almost personable. The key is that it is self knowing, or at least appears to be, and we shall explore why that is in the review.

The movie, itself starts with images of Adrian and then a hooded man walks through a castle and opens a book. All the while, psychedelic space rock tumbles out of the TV speakers sounding remarkably like some obscure Hawkwind B side. The book opens the self-knowing aspects for us, the pages contain cast and crew listings and, despite the hokey premise, this actually works. Cut to a group of freakish looking folks chanting over the body of Count Adrian, willing him to live.

He sits up and accepts a drink, it appears to be blood but with a mad scientists smoke element. It is clear Adrian is in charge and one vampire girl, I assume Vamp (Sharon Bernadi), is very submissive and he casts her aside as she bores him. They await guests. Adrian himself looks terrible, with a Van Dyke and an awful sub-Lugosi accent to boot. He overacts terribly (in a way that eventually becomes endearingly pantomime) and dresses like a head waiter.

In itself the style of dress works as he has converted his castle into a restaurant called Dracula’s Dungeon. Visiting the restaurant are Guy (John Landon) and his girl Angelica (Claudia Barron). She is unsure as the place creeps her out – despite complimentary drinks called zombies. Adrian tells Vamp that she, Angelica, is the one but she manages to get Guy to leave. I should mention the conveyor that serves drinks around the bar, predating Yo Sushi by some time one would think.

Guy and Angelica return to her apartment. He has to leave but she is nervous, no wonder – Adrian and Vamp are spying on her and Angelica can instinctively feel their presence. Vamp was an oddity, obviously jealous she really had very little role in the film, just being a focus for some fang shots really… and what terrible fangs they were, comedy fangs to the max. They not only looked awful but seemed to be held loosely twixt lip and gum, thus wobbling.

After Guy has left, Adrian appears behind Angelica causing her to faint (or so I guess, actually it looked more like she tripped over). He carries her to the bed and then makes a movement over her and enwraps her in his cloak in a way that looked so ridiculously pantomime and was all the more funny because it was done with earnest seriousness. He then bites her.

Angelica visits her doctor, Doctor Harris (Robert Branche), who says there is an unknown element in her blood and that she appears to have lost blood. He has noticed the fang marks on her neck and assumed that they were caused in an overly amorous moment. That I did not buy – obviously not a good doctor. He makes a joke about vampirism, however his joke is enough to start her on a research path. Her friends then introduce her to Count Adrian (who thankfully swaps the formal wear for a sports jacket). Bizarrely Angelica is rather quick to let this stranger hypnotise her – in a ruse employed by Adrian, involving the heroine’s headache, which would later be employed by Dracula in the 1979 film.

The plot is rather simple. He wants her and goes for her. Throw in a bit of Brazilian ritual magic involving a lizard and that’s about it – bar quite a nice little expectation twist at the end. I did like aspects of this, however. When, having received a second toothsome ministration, Angelica awakens she discovers that the sunlight is painful to her. The lighting in the scene, despite the washed out transfer, managed to illustrate her pain and thus was rather well done.

Angelica discovers that she has a desire to eat raw stake and reacts strongly to the cross and yet she still does not realise what is happening to her – despite research. Her source material is faulty – it says that vampires cast no reflection and in this they do – but even so you’d have thought she’d have twigged. That said, she wasn’t too bright, when hearing that Adrian is from Transylvania she admits that she thought it was an invented country/region.

Vampires fight each other through a battle of wills. The concept of this was rather good but the actual on-screen translation looked awful again, with two badly fanged vampires pacing round each other and pulling silly faces until one vanished and ended up in a cage. That is the tenor of the film, I’m afraid, occasional good concepts not well portrayed on screen.

We discover that to turn a victim the vampire must bite them three times. Adrian does not use eye mojo as much as he uses hypnosis. To achieve this he employs a pendant, clear with a bat design, which is not as gaudy as it sounds. The act of hypnosis allows trippy type film techniques to be used. Vampires only die by stake through the heart.

I said the film was self knowing. There is a scene where the Doctor has an hour to burn and the nurse (Angela Carnon) and he become suggestive with one another. One expects a gratuitous sexploitation scene, not the ensuing game of chess. Indeed, given its DVD pairing with Dracula (the dirty old man), I was astonished to discover that there is absolutely no nudity or anything vaguely sexploitative. The presence of Alucard was similarly self-aware – not being a vampire but Adrian’s pet tiger (I guess they had access to an animal trainer and threw that one in for fun).

This isn’t a good film, despite sparks of self-aware good moments it is badly acted, has some poor effects and, worst of all, it drags… it really is quite boring in places. One can’t help but think of Deathmaster due to the trippy (and thus hippy) nature of the film. This is more psychedelic, more from the inside of the sub-culture looking out than Deathmaster, which was more a view of hippy culture from the outside looking in, but overall this is a marginally worse film.

2.5 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.