Blacula

source: Blacula

Blacula

"Blacula" has been greeted with a fair degree of criticism over the years, ever since the film was released in 1972. Personally, I find "Blacula" to be quite enjoyable for a rather clichéd film. The film rattles along agreeably enough, there is some action, the music is pretty catchy and William Marshall shines in the title role. He gives the doomed Vampire prince more depth and shading than a character of this kind of film truly deserves. Marshall lends his authority and his unique voice in bringing the part to life. No one else in the cast is worth fussing over.

William Marshall's performance alone elevates this one to classic fright film status: his character is noble and carries himself with a regal bearing befitting his position as a leader of his people, and Marshall never allows him to degenerate into a campy parody of a vampire. This film is a love story (of the "long lost" variety, an approach also used by the DARK SHADOWS tv show of the same era), but it definitely has TEETH: The slo-mo attack on Elisha Cook, Jr., for instance, helps make BLACULA one of the scariest horror movies of its era. Much has been made of the alleged production values. Keep in mind that this was 1972- 3 decades ago. The production values were superb for the time. (Trust me on this: I've seen some movies whose production values would make BLACULA look like THE GODFATHER by comparison.) Sure, it's dated- but the love story at its heart is timeless.

BLACULA has always been a favorite flick of mine. Two of my biggest intertests within pop culture are the "blaxploitation" film era and gothic subculture. BLACULA makes a perfect melding of these two genres. I also love the fact that it's unique to all other "blaxploitation" movies in the sense that it has a story with true backbone, and the film's main player, William Marshall, gets so into the role he plays and isn't just another Afro-American leading man that talks the lingo and prances around in a fur. He seems well-dignified and intelligent. I thoroughly enjoy this movie and recommend it highly. And where the hell is the DVD??!!?

Basically, this is the story of Dracula updated to the modern day, with blaxploitation trappings to make it distinctive of the era. And a pretty good little variant it is too. Apart from gasping in wonder at the fashions and the afros on display, there's actually a pretty rigid plot here amid the various shows of vampirism. As a spoof, it works extremely well, with Blacula going through all the motions. There's some fine acting from Marshall and Rasulala as the two opposing parties, and loads of great dialogue throughout, such as one character's catchphrase "That is one strange dude". The special effects are handled nicely, with Blacula turning into an animated bat, and the dissolution of his body at the end reminds one of the Hammer DRACULA deaths (except with extra maggots). While this is nothing spectacular, it's still an essential slice of cult '70s mayhem.

If you take this film very seriously, you'll no doubt hate it and turn it off after a few minutes. However, if you have an open mind and are willing to just accept the cheesy aspects of this movie without criticism, then you'll probably find that beneath its silly plot is a moderately interesting horror film/blaxploitation film. My wife thinks I am crazy to have watched it several times (as well as the sequel, SCREAM BLACULA SCREAM), but I think it's a silly little trip back to the 70s and a welcome relief from many movies that take themselves way too seriously. The sad thing about these two movies is that William Marshall was a really good actor with a beautiful voice--it's a shame he didn't get more starring opportunities in Hollywood other than this, an episode of Star Trek and a few other odd jobs.

Yeah, I know, it sounds ridiculous. There is, however, quite a lot beneath the hilarious surface of "Blacula." This is a unique take on the vampire legend. It is the first Dracula film I have seen in which the lead vampire is driven by rage, not by lust or blood lust. Blacula is a tragic figure, a man who is angry about his condition. One could even view this film as a microchosm of race and civil rights issues in the seventies. Yes, I know, that's pushing it. Oh, well, even if you don't go in for the sociological aspects of Blaxploitation horror, check this movie out. It's funny and campy--a great party movie. Also, believe it or not, there is a film called "Blackenstein" though I have been unable to find a cop

When you consider the fact that this movie was saddled with a low budget, a title that--while certainly apropos--is essentially a punch line, and all the constraints that low budget-dom entail... this is a pretty good movie. William Marshall is very good (the 'this will be your tomb' line is delivered as convincinly as any Chris Lee utterance) and was certainly worthy of the role of Bl(Dr)acula. The era of the film provides its own fun. 7/10. The sequel is better on all counts: more scary, campy, funny, visually interesting and sexy.

I didn't see Blacula until 2006, 34 years after it was made, and I found it very entertaining. The lead actor, William Marshall, is really something special and gives the role some authenticity. So if you've made it this far without seeing Blacula, I would recommend it even more. Blacula is portrayed as a somewhat sympathetic character, which I like. Blacula was an African prince in his previous, non-vampire life, who unfortunately travels to Transylvania. There, he attempts to win support from Count Dracula to end the international slave trade. Dracula is not exactly helpful, needless to say. William Marshall is well-cast as a vampire. Charming and debonair one moment, he can turn nasty pretty fast. Marshall is a good actor whose performance here raises what could have been mediocre schlock horror into a pretty good movie. A must-see for horror fans and recommended for just about everybody else too. 7/10