"Countess Dracula" is an odd film, though only in the light of all the myths and hype surrounding it. Taken on its own it's a very simple and mildly diverting little story that passes ninety minutes in an, at times, vaguely interesting way. It boasts some fine actors, including Maurice Denham (who Who fans will know as Azmael from "The Twin Dilemma", but he's done far better than that and this) and Peter Jeffrey (hurrah!) who are both in it quite a bit, though neither contribute much to the paper-thin plot.
Countess Elizabeth is an old woman who, whilst stringing along a fairly old lover, starts fancying a young general's son. After an accident she finds that the blood of young women can rejuvenate her skin and make her appear young again, and so she then poses as her own daughter (the real one of whom is locked up in a shed somewhere) in order to woo the young man and make love to him. However, it transpires that only the blood of young *virgin* women will do - will she be able to get enough of it? Well, let's get a few things straight - this is not another lesbian vampire film due to a) a complete lack of lesbians and b) a complete lack of vampires, the latter of which you would think would severely compromise its placing into a DVD set labelled "The Vampire Collection". I can only surmise that the chaps at Carlton looked at the title, saw that it was a Hammer with Ingrid Pitt in it and so shoved it into the DVD set based on that. So that's that out of the way. It also has some form of status as being an erotic horror; rubbish. Moments of passion are reduced to a few passionate snogs, and the nudity is almost coy, with a few breast shots here and there (there's more in various other horror films of the period - hell, there's more nudity in "Trail of the Pink Panther", and that's a bloody PG). Quite why this film gets an 18 certificate I don't know, as there's only one particularly violent scene towards the beginning, and that's a quick and bloodless stabbing. I might sound like I'm disappointed about all this - I'm not, I personally don't like violence that much, and, though I'm not against nudity in films, its not exactly the be all and end all of films either. It's just that it wasn't really the film I was expecting. There's some court intrigue going on which is vaguely interesting, but that's your lot. No sex, no nudity, no swearing, and hardly any violence. Not even one poxy vampire. So why on Earth is it an 18? I was geared up ready for the worst and it just didn't deliver in any real way, certainly not as a horror, and not even as a decent retelling of the life of the real Countess Elizabeth Bathory, upon which this film was (very loosely) based.
There's little similarity between the two countesses beyond the name and "bathed in blood." The real Countess only *believed* that blood made her appear more youthful - even if this were true, I doubt it would've done so to the same extent as shown here! It would have been more interesting if the Countess in this film had the same sort of mania, but no, it's all taken literally. The film also unfortunately rewrites the fate of the real Countess, which is silly as the alternative presented here is far less horrifying than the actual reality. When her crimes were found out, Bathory was placed inside a room which was then completely bricked up, save for a tiny slot through which food and water could be slid. She was never let out of that room, and actually survived for several years before she finally died (see, what wonderful trivia I've collected over the years). In comparison, the ending to this film is a damp squib. OK, it's a Hammer horror, these hardly ever stick close to their original source material. But when the original real life story was more horrifying than the supposed horror film adaptation of it then something's gone wrong somewhere.
Oh, and Ingrid Pitt is dubbed all the way through in a far nicer and lighter voice than her real one. But that's just me. I've just never found her that attractive m'self. Ahem.
By all means watch it, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. But don't go in there expecting a vampire film, nor an erotic thriller. If people wandering around in period dress murmuring to each other is your thing though, then this is the film for you. 5/10
Countess Elizabeth is an old woman who, whilst stringing along a fairly old lover, starts fancying a young general's son. After an accident she finds that the blood of young women can rejuvenate her skin and make her appear young again, and so she then poses as her own daughter (the real one of whom is locked up in a shed somewhere) in order to woo the young man and make love to him. However, it transpires that only the blood of young *virgin* women will do - will she be able to get enough of it? Well, let's get a few things straight - this is not another lesbian vampire film due to a) a complete lack of lesbians and b) a complete lack of vampires, the latter of which you would think would severely compromise its placing into a DVD set labelled "The Vampire Collection". I can only surmise that the chaps at Carlton looked at the title, saw that it was a Hammer with Ingrid Pitt in it and so shoved it into the DVD set based on that. So that's that out of the way. It also has some form of status as being an erotic horror; rubbish. Moments of passion are reduced to a few passionate snogs, and the nudity is almost coy, with a few breast shots here and there (there's more in various other horror films of the period - hell, there's more nudity in "Trail of the Pink Panther", and that's a bloody PG). Quite why this film gets an 18 certificate I don't know, as there's only one particularly violent scene towards the beginning, and that's a quick and bloodless stabbing. I might sound like I'm disappointed about all this - I'm not, I personally don't like violence that much, and, though I'm not against nudity in films, its not exactly the be all and end all of films either. It's just that it wasn't really the film I was expecting. There's some court intrigue going on which is vaguely interesting, but that's your lot. No sex, no nudity, no swearing, and hardly any violence. Not even one poxy vampire. So why on Earth is it an 18? I was geared up ready for the worst and it just didn't deliver in any real way, certainly not as a horror, and not even as a decent retelling of the life of the real Countess Elizabeth Bathory, upon which this film was (very loosely) based.
There's little similarity between the two countesses beyond the name and "bathed in blood." The real Countess only *believed* that blood made her appear more youthful - even if this were true, I doubt it would've done so to the same extent as shown here! It would have been more interesting if the Countess in this film had the same sort of mania, but no, it's all taken literally. The film also unfortunately rewrites the fate of the real Countess, which is silly as the alternative presented here is far less horrifying than the actual reality. When her crimes were found out, Bathory was placed inside a room which was then completely bricked up, save for a tiny slot through which food and water could be slid. She was never let out of that room, and actually survived for several years before she finally died (see, what wonderful trivia I've collected over the years). In comparison, the ending to this film is a damp squib. OK, it's a Hammer horror, these hardly ever stick close to their original source material. But when the original real life story was more horrifying than the supposed horror film adaptation of it then something's gone wrong somewhere.
Oh, and Ingrid Pitt is dubbed all the way through in a far nicer and lighter voice than her real one. But that's just me. I've just never found her that attractive m'self. Ahem.
By all means watch it, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. But don't go in there expecting a vampire film, nor an erotic thriller. If people wandering around in period dress murmuring to each other is your thing though, then this is the film for you. 5/10