Blood of Dracula's Castle (1969)

Best movie of this year hands down!

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

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 of its genre from the mid to late sixties. It's campy, the acting ranges from great to laughably mediocre. The special effects are very low budget, to the point of being humorous. But the story line is good, except for the mysteriously absent signs of Johnny being a werewolf. It has so many beautiful women and the men are quite handsome(except Mango, of course & I kept seeing Chris Kattan in my mind every time they said his name!) I have this on Amazon Prime and will probably watch it again. And again. I really did enjoy the time spent.

When photographer Glen Cannon (Gene O'Shane) inherits an old castle, he decides to move in, along with his wife-to-be, bikini model Liz Arden (Barbara Bishop). Unfortunately, the property is currently occupied by Mr. & Mrs. Dracula (Alexander D'Arcy and Paula Raymond), their loyal butler George (John Carradine), a hulking caretaker called Mango (Ray Young), and an escaped killer named Johnny (Robert Dix), who may or may not be a werewolf—and they don't want to leave (not surprising considering the trouble they've gone to stocking their cellar with sexy young women as unwilling blood donors).Located in the middle of the Californian desert lies Shea's Castle, a faux-medieval monstrosity constructed in 1924 by a developer with far more cash than class; an unbelievably kitschy creation, the building proves the ideal locale for Blood of Dracula's Castle (1969), a tacky and tasteless piece of schlock from z-movie director Al Adamson that boasts an awful script, hammy performances, and dreadful dialogue, but which possesses a goofy charm that makes it hard to dismiss entirely.However, despite Adamson's rather tongue-in-cheek approach to the majority of the morbidity, and a general lack of concern for logic (the castle, surrounded by desert, is only a stone's throw from a beach!), there is also a noticeably mean streak that delivers several unexpectedly nasty moments, a few characters meeting surprisingly cruel fates, something that qualifies the film as more of a genuine horror experience than one might reasonably expect.

Blood of Dracula's Castle is best seen as a comedy rather than a horror movie. It is not particularly violent and has no real scares, but it definitely has a lot of laughs, many of them intentional. The film follows a young couple who inherit a castle with some rather interesting tenants.Alexander D'Arcy and Paula Raymond, who play the Count and Countess Dracula, make this movie. They make the vampires utterly charming, so much so that we end up rooting for them rather than the protagonists. Other than the occasional human sacrifice, what's not to like? John Carradine is also good as the couple's butler.The film is by no means perfect. The first half is rather meandering, and the characterization is basically non-existent. However, this is still good for a boring Sunday afternoon.

This film is on a set of movies I bought for five dollars and the set is called Gorehouse Greats. Well I have watched nearly everyone of them so far and have to say the name of this package is a misnomer. None of the films have been particularly gory, though they have been entertaining to some degree. This one is not gory and is just a slow plodding movie that at times seems like it almost wants to be a comedy. The date on this movie says 1969 and the trivia says it is 1966, but the film looks like something out of the 50's. The cut they used is terrible, blue lines through almost the entire film. That could be forgiven if the film were not so boring. The highlight was the scenes at the sea park where you see a walrus and some dolphins and a really cool lift that elevates above the park and you can ride outside of it. Yeah, that was really cool and it out did the rest of this movie. The plot has a count and countess living in a castle that does not belong to them, but they lease. Well this dude has just inherited from his uncle and for reasons unknown he and his fiancé want to kick out the old couple who are more than willing to buy the place outright. Which if they had done so it would have most certainly saved them a lot of grief as the two in the castle have a secret. They also have the great John Carradine as a butler, a large hulking caretaker, and another dude who seems to go crazy when the moon is full though why this is even said is beyond me as they never really show it happening. Seriously, this film is only a bit better than "Manos the Hands of Fate". That movie was at least transferred better than this one as it had a good picture, heck if not for the sea world scenes and one female in a bikini I would say Manos was the better film. Just nothing here, not really a horror the count and his wife are so lame that it undercuts any terror and John Carridine adds nothing when his presence can usually help a movie at least a little. Here he only adds to the boredom.