Wow, this is a REALLY bad movie!

best movie i've ever seen.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

There is nothing like a Dracula film based on a true story. It seems the British version of the Bilderbergs along with their Proctor & Gamble counter parts are satanic worshipers (something we all suspected because we all got the e-mail). The bad bikers wear animal skin vests. People who are held prisoner at the International House of Satan must have their left sleeve ripped (there are 3, count 'em.) They plan on taking over the world by releasing a deadly yeast infection, worse than the one my wife claimed she had for 10 years. This varmint was exposed to "radioactive neutrons."Only one man is strong enough to combat a Christopher Lee vampire, and that is a Peter Cushing Van Helsing. The film is campy in a modern sense.First off neutrons do not become radioactive. They are radiation. It is like saying "ammo bullets." Secondly, silver bullets made from melting down crosses are for werewolves, not really good vampire stoppers. And thirdly, the P&G thing is a joke. God knows they sued enough people.Parental Guide: No sex or f-bombs. Nudity.

After the exquisite Gothic trappings of 1958 Dracula and - especially - The Brides of Dracula, the series ended to this... whatever it is. Admittedly copy I saw was not much to write home about, but it probably did justice to colours and sets. Script was dull: Dracula as modern day businessman trying to destroy the world? James Bond films were bad enough, they did not need imitators. On the plus side obnoxious dirtbag Bond is here replaced with Peter Cushing's likable screen presence and using of hawthorn - real anti-vampire plant of folklore - is a nice idea. Jessica Van Helsing, one of the sleazy teenagers from Dracula A.D.1972, is also more mature in this entry.

I am a huge fan of the Hammer Dracula series, but this final installment to the series is in my least favorite and the worst film to boot. While Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee return as Van Helsing and Dracula, the film is barely a horror movie and lacks any ambiance or suspense. This film is a sequel to Dracula AD, which is also set in the then modern era and is directed by the same guy. I like Dracula AD, but this movie is a mess, playing off a lame conspiracy theory/end of the world plot. The Satanic Rites Of Dracula is a great title and Cushing and Lee are great, but the film is crap. The James Bond spy/60's/70's action thrown in a Dracula film does not do this film any favors. There is a quite a bit of nudity and blood, but that does not save this either. However, some fans of exploitation might find this enjoyable or awesomely bad entertainment. However, for me this is one entry I'd wish to ignore in the series.

Hammer's second attempt to modernise the Dracula franchise (after the also-flawed-but-enjoyable Dracula AD 1972), 'The Satanic Rites of Dracula' has our good friend the Count (Christopher Lee, of course) inexplicably revived and fraternising among England's elite and powerful who we see in the opening scene performing a, umm, Satanic Rite and who the police soon begin investigating. What follows is a plot which starts as a hard-boiled 70s TV detective story and ends on an oddly James Bond note when the scope of Dracula's dastardly plan is revealed. In between these two extremes lurks a few minutes of traditional Hammer fare when Van Helsing (Peter Cushing, of course) is drafted in as an occult expert. For these brief moments, Cushing's class threatens to redeem the film but Cushing is not a Bond type hero and the potentially intriguing head-to-head with Dracula and the climax itself both quickly lose tension. As such, along with its pointless and go-nowhere Satanic "theme" (probably just an excuse for some tit shots), the film is a confused heap.The film was released in the same year as 'The Exorcist' which in its re-envisioning of Horror beckoned quite authoritatively the next pendulum swing of the genre back across the pond having been in blighty since the late 1950s and Hammer's own 'The Curse of Frankenstein' (1957) and the studio's first stab at the legend with 'Dracula' (1958). It is interesting to note that Christopher Lee is the actor who put in the most performances as the immortal count and with 'The Satanic Rites of Dracula' finally hung up his cape. This wasn't to stop Hammer releasing the kung-fu vampire movie 'The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires' the following year – which, needless to say, I haven't seen.