SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

quridley I love Al Adamson's aesthetic of space age lounge swingers, Universal monsters, loose scripts and surprisingly effective moments of atmosphere and sadistic violence. "Blood" is way less campy and sloppy than most of his work. He makes use of lovely locations, gets some good photography, creates some disturbing moments and does it in a breezy matinée style. The acting, lighting and overall direction is fast and amateur because of the budget, but its still a nifty production. A good watch.

ASouthernHorrorFan "Blood Of Dracula's Castle" is a 1969 film from Crown International Pictures directed by Al Adamson, and Jean Hewitt. The story takes place at the castle of Count and Countess Townsend, really Count Dracula and his wife. They lure a young women to their home for a continued blood supply. When a young man inherits the castle and appears with his young girlfriend the Count and Countess set out to chase away the couple. The story of "Blood Of Dracula's Castle" is a bit of a train wreck with very little true attention paid to detail as the story falls apart. John Carradine, Paula Raymond, Alexander D'Arcy, Robert Dix, Gene Otis Shayne, Jennifer Bishop and Ray Young all star in the film which gives a nice nostalgia for some of us when watching "Blood Of Dracula's Castle" but not enough to really warrant any fan's of Dracula's to embrace the film completely. Dracula and his wife are practically neutered and remind me of the time the Flintstone's met Count Dracula. The addition of Mango, and a homicidal maniac to the film should have brought with them more blood but the only red that flows in this film mostly languishes in the glasses of Count and Countess Townsend. All this makes for a dull viewing experience. The effects and soundtrack for "Blood Of Dracula's Castle" are also neutered in this one. For a film that claims to be exploitation horror I found no real show of exploitation save the bevvy of beauties chained to the castle wall. The deaths are almost none-existent and for the most part implied so I don't get the exploitative aspect branded to this film. The sound is very 1969 cheap-o that screams love-me-late-night- horror-host so there is no real reason to even bother with addressing that element of "Blood Of Dracula". Embrace this one if you wanna, I justify having it by my unending love of even crappy old movies and John Carradine. New horror fans just no that this is a 1969 Hammer film wanna be so don't expect much of anything here.

Michael O'Keefe Very low-budget horror film directed by Al Adamson. This familiar story revolves around a playboy photographer Glen Cannon(Gene O'Shane),who inherits a castle in the middle of a California desert. When he and his photogenic fiancée Liz(Barbara Bishop)travel to claim the property, they find the current residents are Count Charles Townsend(Alexander D'Arcy), alias Count Dracula and his vampire bride(Paula Raymond). As Glen and Liz spend the night they realize something is amiss...abducted teenage girls chained in the dungeon in order to provide sustenance for the Count and Countess. Veteran actor John Carradine plays George the butler. A bit eerie. but very little gore or scares. Also in the cast: Robert Dix, Ray Young and Vicki Volante.

Kaya Ozkaracalar I am fond of Z-movies, including some by Al Adamson, but BLOOD OF Dracula'S CASTLE is not one of my favorites. As always, it is a great pleasure to watch (and listen to) John Carradine and some of the dialogs by other cast are also fun, but, overall, the movie is not very interesting. To begin with, it is somewhat lame for a 1969 release: yes, there are girls chained up in a dungeon, but they are not even very scantily clad; Dracula THE DIRTY OLD MEN for example had more exploitative imagery to offer. One noteworthy moment in this regard is a scene where two rats appear near the bare feet of the chained up girls and give the actresses apparently real unease. So is another scene where Robert Dix fondles a chained up girl with his knife! Dix is actually pretty good, I mean very believable, as a polished psycho. His relatively straight and high caliber acting contrasts with the camp humor of Alex D'Arcy as Dracula. Hey, I realize that the more I write about it, the movie may sound more interesting. Hmm.. Maybe the reason the movie is lame lies in the fact that it is actually a production from a few years back, possibly 1966 as the date on an on screen telegram indicates. I mean it was made before the Code was abolished (1968). A piece of disturbing film history: Co-producer Rex Carlton (who also wrote the script) had apparently invested in the movie by taking loans from the mob. When the producers couldn't pay the lab bill, a distributor bought the movie from the lab and Carlton committed suicide as this meant he couldn't pay back the mob.