Rating: 
Summary: Underrated
Review: Sure, Christopher Lee might've been tired with the role of Dracula by this time- who wouldn't? Lee and this series in general milked its original feel for all it was worth and then some, and now set to conquer the modern world. Peter Cushing, in particular, seems invigrorated and enthused at playing Van Helsing. The plot sees Dracula revived as a billionaire industrialist recluse who only works by night. Van Helsing & company get word of strange rituals being held, and investigate. The find out human sacrifices take place for Count Dracula, who has also gotten hold of a mutant strain of the Bubonic plague. His Four Horsemen for the Apocalypse include Van Helsing, who is captured, buy typically one of the three others chickens out, sacrificing himself for the good of mankind. Dracula needs the plague to end his own life and doom of immortality. We get a strange, dull, but unpredictable and rather original ending from the thorns of Christ. Also, Dracula has several brides keeping him company, and again Jessica Van Helsing is his next bride to be. I liked this a lot, and I also like Dracula A.D. 1972.
Rating: 
Summary: So-so end to the Hammer Dracula cycle
Review: The final 'Dracula' movie from Hammer Films, it's not quite as good as previous efforts and budget constraints are painfully evident. The premise is just as appealing to me as it was when I first saw this film nearly 20 years ago now--it can be summarized as Dracula Meets The Avengers, as the vampire lord plans to unleash a deadly plague on the Earth--although I think Dracula's death is probably the most embarrasing any vampire has ever suffered. Peter Cushing shines as brightly as ever, although Christopher Lee seems a bit tired in the film. It might be a reflection of Dracula's own mindset, but it's more likely the actor's disastifaction with the role shining through. The scene with the vampire brides of Dracula rising from their caskets and surrounding one of the main characters remains intensely frightning to me.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor, from a technical standpoint
Review: THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA certainly received a poor introduction to DVD. There are several techinical aspects of this DVD that are hard to overlook. First, a terribly poor print was used. The picture is at times quite grainy. Second, missing frames in the actual film are noted. Third, the skin tones are at times glowing and harsh. Foruth, the mono soundtrack is poorly rendered and at times dialogue is difficult to understand due to muffle. As for the bonus material, the UK and US trailers appear to be mislabeled. The trailers are extremely poor quality and are not framed properly. Some of the bonus material is repeated on the DVD DRACULA, PRINCE OF DARKNESS (a much better rendered DVD). This is a 2 sided disc with the feature and the bonus material on opposite sides. Side A (the movie) would not display time and chapter info on my DVD player's screen (annoying). Overall, Anchor Bay did a lousy job with this DVD in my opinion. Why such a poorly programmed disc for such a higher end price? Not worth the price paid, but worth having the movie on hand.
Rating:
Summary: Christopher Lee's Last Dracula
Review: The Satanic Rites of Dracula is Christopher Lee's last time portraying everyone's favorite undead count. This one, taking place in 1974 depicts Dracula as a secret head of a corporation. In London, he has his followers who worship him in a cult. Dracula's main goal in this one is to release a new strain of plague upon the world so chaos will run rampant. I found this an average movie, no where near as good as Dracula, Prince of Darkness. The DVD contains the Widescreen version and the trailers. Also on it is a 'World Of Hammer' episode narrated by Oliver Reed. It's called Dracula and the Undead and I found it uninteresting.
Rating: 
Summary: stop hating ya'll-Mod is not for goths!
Review: There are alot of nasty reviews of this movie. I mean I guess I can understand why someone would hate this: if they took Dracula seriously and if they shop at Hot Topic and wear pentagrams. Geez, it's just a movie. This movie was great, aesthetically the movie is very pleasing. The scenes are intriguing.Oversaturated color gave it a very artistic look. The movie is so mod not goth, very period mod look: hip pointed-toe boot wearing biker gangs, teased hair and slick suits. The music was fantastic. The composer was Cacavas, if the soundtrack sounds familiar, it is because he did the scores for tons of mod films. He even did the Hawaii-Five-O stuff.
Alot of people are hating and are saying that Dracula belongs in the 1800s. That is bogus. This film is unique because it is modern. There are like a bazillion gothic, cold-castle, German villiage, same ole' same ole' plot vampire films.Now that is boring. I want to see something new. I want to see Dracula's good taste in lounge furniture. I want to Dracula's sheepskin wearing, big sunglass sporting motorcycle gang snipers.
I highly recommend this film for those that can appreciate beautiful and symbolic things (lots of interesting symbolism). And for those that want "realistic fangs" and a long ratty haired cast, go watch "Bram Stocker's" for like the millionth time.Ok.
Rating:
Summary: Give it a chance
Review: This film is definitely better than it's reputation, you just have to accept that this it was time to move Dracula out of the gothic settings because that perspective had been milked as far as it could go. This film is certainly a step up from Dracula A.D. 1972. What we do have is a film thta took Dracula and tried to place him at the heart of a modern age evil scheme. The story centers around a biological germ that Dracula and a few high-level satan worshippers possess. I like this aspect because it makes Dracula timeless, in that he stays evil, but he adjusts his means and methods according to the society around him. The acting is overall good and there are enough action scenes to make it interesting, although I cringe everytime I see those guards in the hairy vests that look like they are on their way to a Sonny Bono fanclub meeting. This is by no means a classic, but it is watchable and enjoyable.
Rating: 
Summary: Lee's swan song as the Hammer film's Dracula
Review: This film was originally released in Britain as "The Satanic Rites of Dracula," but that is apparently a very bad adjective to use for a film title (the original U.S. release title was "Count Dracula and His Vampire Bride"). Whatever the title, this 1973 film is again set in "modern" London like the previous Hammer Dracula film, "Dracula A.D. 1972," and has the same writer (Don Houghton) and director (Alan Gibson). Dracula (Christopher Lee) is once again back from the dead, although without any explanation, now calling himself D. D. Denham, a billionaire recluse who owns lots of property and is engaging in satanic rites (hence the title), including human sacrifies (a form of fasting for vampires?). Scotland Yard turns to Professor Lorrimer Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) and his daughter Jessica (Joanna Lumley), who figures out the Count is trying to wipeout all of humanity with a mutant strain of the plague. From there things muddle along to a slightly new twist on an old way of dusting a vampire. Once again the script has little to do with either established vampire lore or the unique take on Dracula from the earlier Hammer films. This is a shame since the cast also includes Freddie Jones as Professor Julian Keeley, who plays Dracula's mad scientist and provides one of the finest bit parts you will find in any Hammer film. Of course, Lee is again given very little to do as the title character in his final Dracula film for Hammer, while Cushing once again provides a strong presence as Van Helsing. "Rites of Dracula" again proves the simple rule: if you want to watch a Hammer Dracula movie catch one of the films made in the Sixties, not the stuff they put out in the Seventies.
Rating:
Summary: Dracula is really dead or is trying to be
Review: This has to be the worst of the Lee-Cushing Hammer Draculas. One has to wonder if they had a film - lame - and they said - HEY lets put Lee in his cape in here and we will make money. Idiots! Sorry, I love Lee, Cushing and the other Dracula films but Hammer was in it for the bucks here and nothing else. The fact it was released under various titles tells you something, Satanic was one, but there was "Dracula is Dead and Well and Living in London" or uninspired "Count Dracula and his Bride". I mean that is ALL they could come up with? Sequel to A.D., charming Joanna Lumley takes over from Stephanie Beacham as Van Helsing's granddaughter. Cushing is back as well. So bad it's sort of good...lol. Count Dracula decides to wipe out mankind with a super-plague so he can finally die? Well, I am sure they thought it sounded good on paper. Of interest to Lee-Cushing fans, but others will yawn.
Rating:
Summary: Dracula is really dead or is trying to be
Review: This has to be the worst of the Lee-Cushing Hammer Draculas. One has to wonder if they had a film - lame - and they said - HEY lets put Lee in his cape in here and we will make money. Idiots! Sorry, I love Lee, Cushing and the other Dracula films but Hammer was in it for the bucks here and nothing else. The fact it was released under various titles tells you something, Satanic was one, but there was "Dracula is Dead and Well and Living in London" or uninspired "Count Dracula and his Bride". I mean that is ALL they could come up with? Sequel to A.D., charming Joanna Lumley takes over from Stephanie Beacham as Van Helsing's granddaughter. Cushing is back as well. So bad it's sort of good...lol. Count Dracula decides to wipe out mankind with a super-plague so he can finally die? Well, I am sure they thought it sounded good on paper. Of interest to Lee-Cushing fans, but others will yawn.
Rating:
Summary: Nonsense but Great Fun.
Review: This is a very 1970s affair. It was a time when `Rosemary's Baby was the last big thing in horror movies and Dennis Wheatley was a best-seller: so werewolves and vampires were out, Satanism in. So here we get a Wheatley-esque story of powerful people sucked into devil-worship grafted onto an old fashioned Dracula story. The other main way it's of its time is hinted at by the presence of Joanna Lumley: the best way to enjoy this is just to think of it as, to all intents and purposes a feature-length episode of `The Avengers'. For that's exactly what it's like in all its very 70s silliness, with Dracula, now a mysterious big businessman, guarded by murderous young men on motorbikes sporting afghans, shades and extremely out of fashion moustaches, dividing his time between a high tech towerblock and the obligatory creepy old house with his harem of lady vampires in the cellar. (Here rather feeble lady vampires - I know of no other film where vampires can be killed by sprinklers.) My favourite bit is where the doorman of the creepy towerblock makes it clear that he has two standing instructions:
1. Nobody to be allowed to see Mr Denham, under any circumstances, ever.
2. None of Mr Denham's visitors to be allowed to carry cameras.
It's really desperately silly and you'd have to be a very frightened rabbit indeed to find it terribly scary but, hey, it's such fun. Here for the last - and admittedly not the best - time together are Christopher Lee's Dracula and Peter Cushing's van Helsing, the latter infinitely cooler than Hugh Jackman's witless portrayal could ever dream of being, especially when he is wielding what must surely be the smallest gun in cinema history. (Arnie would have used a rocket-launcher.) Nonsense on stilts then but quite tremendous fun.
| 
