Crescendo (1970)

Crescendo is another lesser-known Hammer movie that stands firmly in thriller territory, as opposed to the many solid horrors that they released. Funnily enough, while the movie was running I couldn't help but think of Amuck! The two have superficial similarities here and there, but the latter movie is a much more enjoyable experience.

Stefanie Powers plays Susan Roberts, a young woman who travels to the South of France to work on her thesis about a famous, deceased composer. While there, she is lucky enough to be shown a lot of hospitality by the composer's widow (Margaretta Scott) and his son (James Olson). But maybe that's not such a good thing, especially as she starts to see how strange they are.

With the addition of a creepy manservant (Joss Ackland) and a scheming maid (Jane Lapotaire), this thriller really overcooks everything in a way that could have been entertaining if the central character interactions were more fun. Sadly, they're not and the film suffers because of it.

The direction by Alan Gibson is not lively, or stylish, enough to elevate the weak script by Jimmy Sangster and Alfred Shaughnessy. Nobody involved has the courage to make things darker or sleazier, which is why a movie like Amuck! will always play better (hey, if there are many failings elsewhere in a movie then darkness and eroticism can help a lot . . . . . . . just look at the likes of Basic Instinct and anything from 20 years ago starring Shannon Tweed).

Stefanie Powers is okay in her role, as beautiful as ever and almost believably manipulated into sticking around even as things get curiouser and curiouser, while Margaretta Scott and James Olson roll their eyes and go over the top whenever possible. If you can watch Olson in the second half of the movie without thinking of one or two particular scenes from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels then you're a better man than I am. Jane Lapotaire is annoying, but Joss Ackland almost manages to counterbalance her badness, though not quite.

It remains a notch above the very worst that the studio released, but it's a close call.

4/10

http://www.amazon.com/Crescendo-James-Olson/dp/B0026RB2J8/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1373382061&sr=1-1&keywords=crescendo

The Satanic Rites Of Dracula (1973)

The last Hammer movie to feature Christopher Lee in his most iconic role and the last Hammer movie in which he would share screen-time with Peter Cushing, The Satanic Rites Of Dracula should have been a better swansong for the battling duo but, well, it is what it is. Which is rubbish, but entertainingly daffy rubbish.

It's the 1970s and Scotland Yard are investigating a strange cult based in London after an undercover agent escaped from the place and tried to provide them with more information before inconveniently dying. Inspector Murray (Michael Coles) and an agent named Torrence (William Franklyn) visit noted occult expert Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) for help and as secrets are uncovered Professor Van Helsing starts to worry about his granddaughter (played by Joanna Lumley this time), the possible return of Dracula and a plan that may involve the use of some truly horrendous, and deadly, bacteria.

There's something sad about seeing the Hammer movies in which they tried to modernise their material and appeal to a dwindling audience. They were trying to change with the times, but instead ended up losing part of their charm, losing their ability to release something that looked like a quality product and feeling more desperate with each release. To highlight the losing battle that they were fighting, just compare this movie to the other big horror titles of the year - films like The Exorcist, Don't Look Now, The Wicker Man, and The Legend Of Hell House.

Thankfully, the sadness of just how dated and poor this movie is ends up being tempered by how it's also completely bonkers. Even the weak ending is more enjoyable because of how ridiculous it is. Don Houghton is the man who came up with the script and Alan Gibson is in the director's chair, both men returning to continue the modern day Dracula saga that they started with Dracula A. D. 1972.

Lee and Cushing are, of course, great in their roles while Michael Coles and William Franklyn both do well with what they're given. Joanna Lumley is better in the role of granddaughter Van Helsing than Stephanie Beacham was and small roles are ably filled by the likes of Richard Vernon, Freddie Jones and Barbara Yu Ling.

The best thing about the film is that, if nothing else, it allows for the stories of the characters to come to a natural, and satisfying, conclusion. Cushing would return as Van Helsing (fighting a version of Dracula removed from the Christopher Lee incarnation) in The Legend Of The 7 Golden Vampires, but it's easy to view that as just a curio piece, separate from this series and cinematic universe. Because it is.

5/10

http://www.amazon.com/The-Satanic-Rites-Dracula-Christopher/dp/B000095J42/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356117566&sr=8-1&keywords=the+satanic+rites+of+dracula

Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)

I don't know what the general consensus is on this Hammer horror movie but, for me, it's one of the worst of the lot featuring our favourite fanged count. Even if it is also amusingly groovy.

No, no, NO, don't look at the camera.

After Dracula (Christopher Lee) is yet again laid to rest by the brave Van Helsing we move forward to the Britain of the seventies where one of the Count's followers (Christopher Neame as Johnny Alucard) is doing his best to bring the master back to life, allowing him to exact his revenge on the descendants of Van Helsing (Peter Cushing is on board for this instalment and also has a granddaughter played by Stephanie Beacham).

No, no, NO, DON'T look at the camera.

Directed by Alan Gibson and written by Don Houghton, this vampire movie suffers from a number of distracting flaws. First of all, the updating of the ongoing battle between Dracula and Van Helsing to the 1970s makes the movie, ironically, appear much more dated than any other movie in Hammer's Dracula series. Then we have the terrible acting. Cushing and Lee are as good as ever but the support from the "hip youngsters" is cringeworthy. Beacham doesn't do well but even her poor performance is better than most of the others on screen, with the exception of the gorgeous and magnetic Caroline Munro - who is gorgeous and magnetic and I won't hear any different.

Ahhh Caroline, you can look at the camera if you want to. No? Okay.

Everything is flat and unexciting, from the painful script that strives to be down with the kids to the execution of the few set-pieces, and we get a distinct lack of any pleasing bloodletting or lusty behaviour to compensate for the many dull moments.

This photo highlights the complete lack of bloodletting or lusty behaviour.

Is there any way it could be made any worse? Maybe a gratuitous scene featuring a couple of ear-hurting musical numbers from "Stoneground" - who also get namecheked as if they were appearing on some Saturday kid's TV show - with one or two of the band members doing their best to stare at the camera whenever they get the chance (see the top pic as an example). It's a testament to their presence that Lee and Cushing manage to raise this movie to the tier of average. Without them, it would definitely rank even lower.

5/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dracula-D-1972-DVD-Christopher/dp/B000B7KXDG/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1354657613&sr=1-1