For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Predictable, when Viewed Today, it is the "Hip" Dialog and Behavior of the Mods that make this one a Picture that Fluctuates Between Hammer's Reliable Sex and Gore with Lee and Cushing and a somewhat Strained Attempt to make it "Today (1972)".Not All of it Works, but Some of it Does. Once the Film gets Past the Obvious and Clunky Introductions of Time and Place with Cringe Inducing "Long Hair" Music and Party Crashers, along with "Drug Talk", the Movie Kicks in with some Stirring Stuff that Hammer Fans Expect.The Churchyard Sets are there for that Gothic Invasion of Swinging London and when Van Helsing, the Count, and a Police Murder Investigation gets underway the Movie Settles into a Passable Vampire Hunt.There are some Effective Touches here and there with Rituals and Rites, and as a whole the Movie is Better than Expected. Not in the Top Tier of Hammer Horror, but all Hammer Films are Worth a Watch and this is No Exception.

In a move that seems to confirm the events covered in 1958's original 'Dracula' weren't the only time The Count fought his enemy Van Helsing, this updating of Hammer's vampire myth begins with a spectacular scuffle between Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee atop a speeding stagecoach. The grim and gruesome climax results in the death of both, revealing a continuity error – events covered in 'Dracula' happened in 1885, 13 years after this prologue. Perhaps the Van Helsing featured there was a relation of this one! The decision to move the Lord of the Undead into modern times has been lambasted over the years by horror fans, not least because the hip dialogue between the hippy gang was dated even then. The intervening years have been forgiving however – viewed now, this updating is now a period piece, and phrases like 'Dig the music kids' seems to be part and parcel with the overall 'flares and winged-collars' styles of the day.There's a knowing, pseudo-parody feel about this too. Describing a victim as 'a bit drained' and inviting someone to 'come in for a bite' evokes an atmosphere at odds with the grim and serious presence of Dracula and his various machinations, giving the impression Hammer weren't entirely confident about the direction in which this series should go. Their recent 'Horror of Frankenstein (1970)' was laced with similar comedy and was received very poorly.After bringing their vampire into the then present day, the writers then decide to keep him very much apart from it. All Dracula's scenes take place in or around a deconsecrated church, and any interaction with life in 1972 is left to Christopher Neame's enjoyably over-the-top Johnny Alucard. His fight with Van Helsing is a high-point (lots of nice directorial moments from Alan Gibson), but it does rob Dracula of screen-time, as usual.This is good fun though, in much the same way Universal's latter-day horrors were good fun – little in the way of actual horror atmospherics, but a fast-pace monster piece. And to its credit, the now traditional decomposition of Dracula in the finale is one of the most gruesome of the entire series.

Hammer had upped the sex and gore in their movies but were still loosing ground to more modern horror. Perhaps missing the point, Hammer decided to update their biggest franchise. Dracula was, as the awesome trailer says, coming to the 1970s to "freak you out." The film also reunites Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, Dracula and Van Helsing facing off once more. The tactic didn't work and the film wasn't successful. "Dracula 1972 AD" would be the beginning of the end for Hammer's Dracula series."Dracula 1972 AD" opens with a flashback. Dracula and Van Helsing fight atop a carriage in 1872… Wait. "Horror of Dracula" was set in 1885! You're telling me the first movie took place thirteen years after Dracula and Van Helsing's final fight? If the filmmakers were even paying attention, we can presume this was a continuity reboot. Unless you want me to fanwank an explanation involving identical twins and unseen resurrections… Anyway, 100 years later, a hip Satanist named Johnny Alucard invites his groovy friends to a black mass at an abandoned church. After some Satanic bugaboo, Dracula is resurrected in the swinging seventies. Among Johnny's friend is Jessica Van Helsing, the current Van Helsing's granddaughter. Dracula seeks the girl for revenge.After the action packed opening, "Dracula 1972 AD" does a dramatic jump cut. We pan up from the carriage to a jet flying through the sky. As we go on a tour of the hip spots of London, circa 1972, a funk-jazz number plays on the soundtrack. Soon, the film transitions to a party where some awful hippy band plays. The uptight social types are aghast at the presentations while the cool kids joke around with them. If the title, music, and fashion didn't clue you in, the obvious way the characters act places this in the seventies. The hippy teenagers are constantly at odds with the adults. Isolated scenes seem less like Hammer horror and more like a teen-targeted social drama.What does this have to do with Dracula? Not a lot. The title promises Dracula cutting up among the modern world. That doesn't happen. Instead, Lee remains confined to the abandoned church for the entire film. Perhaps Dracula realizes he, still rocking the black cape look, wouldn't fit in. The character's role is quite small. So the film creates a deliberate segregation between Gothic horror and the modern setting. Johnny Alucard brings victims back to the church, where Dracula feeds on them. The king of the vampires hangs out there while his young disciple goes hunting. On the good side, this dynamic is represented by the police collaborating with occult expert Van Helsing. The weirdest part is that director Alan Gibson nails the classic Hammer look. The grey crypt and billowing fog look awesome. But "Dracula 1972 AD" does not do a good job of mingling Gothic horror with a modern setting. Compare this to the same year's "Blacula," which did the same thing more successfully.With Lee used sparingly, the focus shifts to the kids. How much you enjoy "1972" will depend on how much you enjoy the characters. Johnny Alucard's character arc is identical to Count Courtley from "Taste the Blood of Dracula" except instead of dying, he turns into a vampire. There is a sleazy charm to Alucard stalking women in Soho. The teens are thinly defined. One is a prankster, one is noble, one is black, and then there's the Other Girl. "Dracula 1972 AD" is fortunate to feature two of the most desirable women to ever appear in a Hammer film. Stephanine Beacham plays Jessica. I wish Beacham had more to do, besides be a screaming victim, as she proves likable. She's also always on the verge of exploding out of her tight tops. Meanwhile, achingly beautiful Caroline Munro plays Laura, who is, disappointingly, Dracula's first victim.For the problems "AD" has, the film does have stand-out moments. The Black Mass sequence is the closest the film comes to being scary. The music builds, smoke rises, Alucard shouts demonic names, and the scene climaxes with Caroline Munro getting blood poured over her cleavage. Cushing's role, though much larger then Lee's, still has limited screen time. Too much of that is devoted to Cushing giving exposition on vampires, which the audience already knows. Cushing, for his benefit, plays this Van Helsing differently then the classic Van Helsing. He's older, more vulnerable to physical violence, and more bookish. When he leaps into action, confronting Alucard in his apartment, he gets wounded at first. However, Van Helsing uses his brain to overcome, reflecting sunlight off a mirror until Alucard falls into a working shower. That's a fun moment. The duel between Lee and Cushing has a tense confrontation in a stairway, makes good use of a silver dagger, and gives Dracula a spectacular death. Dracula tosses Van Helsing outside and goes in for the kill. Suddenly, the hunter tosses holy water into the vampire's face before dropping him in an improvised punji spike pit. Drac squirms as Van Helsing hits him with a shovel, bloodily pushing him through a stake. As far as Dracula's death scenes go, it's up there with the sun-bathed finale in "Horror of Dracula." And, hey, the entire climax features Stephanie Beachum in a low-cut white dress. Which is nice.Director Alan Gibson has some interesting directorial quirks. He makes good use of close-ups on faces. Something he does repeatedly is place the action in the distance while filling the rest of the frame with negative space. "Dracula 1972 AD" wasn't a hit but has developed a following over the years. It has a funky energy unique among the series even if it doesn't make the best use of Lee and could have done a better job updating the Count for the then-modern day.

This attempt by Hammer to keep their Dracula franchise going is amusing, to say the least: they bring him hissing and biting into the 20th century, as a modern day disciple of the count resurrects him. Dracula then becomes a man on a mission, determined to get his revenge on the current generation(s) of Van Helsings. Once again played by Sir Christopher Lee, Drac sets his sights on Jessica (Stephanie Beacham), the comely granddaughter of an occult expert, played with his usual sophistication and sincerity by Peter Cushing.The potential to see an old fashioned sort of character way out of his element in the swinging London of the early 1970s is wasted, as Dracula never leaves an abandoned church (not on screen, anyway). A little of Drac does go a long way, even though fans of Sir Christopher might wish he were given a little more to do. The focus of this sequel is on the other characters, and there's so much talk / exposition going on that it robs the film of some effectiveness; there's just not that much horror. (There is, of course, the requisite neck biting, and a rather bloody occult ceremony that is the highlight of the film.) The disco style music is priceless at times, giving the proceedings a very humorous quality.Cushing, not surprisingly, makes all the difference with his performance. He could say just about anything and you'd buy into it. Still, the supporting cast is good, especially Christopher Neame as the intense Johnny Alucard (*that's* a pretty clumsy clue), Michael Coles as the naturally skeptical police inspector, Marsha A. Hunt as Gaynor, and luscious Caroline Munro as Laura, a regrettably minor part.Director Alan Gibson is no Terence Fisher, but he does an acceptable job in what is mostly an average shocker for its time, mostly worth recommending to devotees of the cast and genre. It does manage to deliver a solidly entertaining finale.Six out of 10.