Blood of Dracula's Castle (1969) - Horror

Hohum Score

88

Hohummer

Count Dracula and his wife capture beautiful young women and chain them in their dungeon, to be used when they need to satisfy their thirst for blood.

IMDB: 3.2
Director: Al Adamson
Stars: John Carradine, Paula Raymond
Length: 84 Minutes
PG Rating: N/A
Reviews: 9 out of 37 found boring (24.32%)

One-line Reviews (21)

Perhaps Adamson was wanting to make a straight and serious film and while doing that, this one here comes off a bit boring and never reaches its potential of becoming an outrageously funny film.

Their castle in the desert is really a rental, featuring a dungeon where they have their victims chained to the wall and literally blood out of them as they require a glass of human wine it's all done with manners too, and that makes this and tree and the Dracula cycle of films one of the most tongue in cheek, surprisingly entertaining for a film that is deeply flawed.

It is very intense movie.

I found most of this movie rather plodding and dull, accompanied by an overbearing score which attempts to ape the classic Universal pictures.

Here he only adds to the boredom.

Its somewhat ineptly made but all of it endearing, right down to the confusing issue of whether Robert Dix's Johnny is a werewolf or not.

That dragged on for a while...

Worth Watching Mainly For John Carradine .

Boy, does this hysterically cruddy clinker possess all the right wrong stuff to qualify as a real four-star stinkeroonie: the hopelessly ham-fisted (mis)directed by the notorious Al Adamson, a seriously confused and meandering narrative, the hilariously atrocious acting, a talky script, the rusty tin-eared dialogue ("I Love you dearly, dear"), the complete absence of any tension and creepy atmosphere, a plodding place, the tacky (far from) special effects, the roaring stock film library score, the clumsy attempts at humor, and the limply staged less-than-thrilling grand finale all give this perfectly putrid picture a certain endearingly kitschy charm.

Director Al Adamson churned out a lot of low budget genre efforts like this one, and they never really get any better in quality, but they're always entertaining in a blatantly silly way.

Bad, Dull and Dreary .

All this makes for a dull viewing experience.

However, this is still good for a boring Sunday afternoon.

D'Arcy is an especially entertaining villain because he's just so damn pleasant and cheerful.

Enjoyable Grade Z clunker .

Still, BLOOD is bad, and more mediocre than entertaining.

Personally, though, I believe this adds to the aesthetic of the movie; something about the apparent age of the film makes it that much more enjoyable to watch.

I suppose it's worth a watch if your really really bored ** out of 5

Much of it is entertaining in that "so bad it's good" sort of way.

BLOOD is boring, with only a few laughs produced from the bad acting and flimsy-looking props.

It's dull, dreary, poorly acted and written and has what are probably the two most ineffective vampires in history (even though one is supposed to Count Dracula?!