Reptileenbu
Did you people see the same film I saw?
Nessieldwi
Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.
Cristal
The movie really just wants to entertain people.
aw1963
Fun little movie with 2 of the main ingredients for a horror,death and nudity.The acting is horrible,but I think deliberately so,the effects are horrible,again I think deliberately so.Most of the girls are kinda cute and Monique Parent as Elizebeth ,is deliciously funny and evil and beautifully naked in all her glory.If you have a spare hour or so and don't want to think too much or do much else but sit and have a giggle then this is a movie for you,if you are looking for belly laughs,then it isn't.A solid 5.
Platypuschow
Truth be told I expected a low budget T&A flick with very little substance however I was only right about the budget which really isn't an issue with the right crew. Blood Scarab cannot be taken seriously featuring a mummy right out of the Hammer Horror archive, a dreadfully cast Dracula, Countess Elizabeth Bathory and Renfield as the protagonist of the film! The story though silly made the poor performances, terrible humor and lackluster effects oddly watchable but it could only take the movie so far.Overall Blood Scarab is above par among movies of it's ilk but that's not saying a vast amount. Watchable if only for the novelty value.
orion_ss1
Well, actually Countess Dracula meets Hathor.A sequel to Donald Glut's Mummy's Kiss and Mummy's Kiss; Second Dynasty, as well as his Countess Dracula's Orgy of Blood which was a sequel to his The Erotic Rites of Countess Dracula; I was just a little disappointed. He made his name doing T&A B-movies and I liked the first four. Sexy scenes and lots of humor, he did not take himself too seriously. In the commentary track he notes how everything was done in a matter of days and on a shoestring budget. For this one he had double the usual time and it may have thrown off his efforts.I enjoy a plot line in my B movies but I don't expect or want an Oscar candidate. I enjoy his choice of stars ( okay, starlets ) but he took himself too seriously with this one.There is a nice appearance by Scream Queen Brinke Stevens, and several new faces ( and other parts ). Expect bigger things from Natasha Diakova.The story of ( the actual historical character ) Elizabeth Bathery ( who may not have been a lesbian ), played ably by Monique Parent, who is trying to live in daylight by joining forces with the Egyptian goddess Hathor ( attended by beautiful half nude handmaidens ).I won't risk spoiling the rest. If you like B movies this is better than most, but not as good as the others by Mr. Glut. I DID enjoy it, but not with the same enthusiasm as I'd hoped.
shadorealm
Well worth a look, if you go in with the right expectations, even if you haven't cared in the past for Don Glut's favored sub-genre - 'The Parade of Young Models with Big Boobs'.Monique Parent looks and is perfect as a feline and slinky vampire. Whatever she wants to come back for the next episode in this series, Don Glut will be wise to give it to her. She clearly knows exactly what this job is about and delivers 110 percent. She could easily initiate a whole new sub-genre - 'Hot Vampire MILF'.Also doing his job well is Del Howison, the proprietor of Dark Delicacies Bookstore, in the continuing misadventures of the much put upon 'Renfield', a mash-up of Dwight Frye with Willie Loomis from Dark Shadows. He's even given a nice story arc this time. But, in between keeping all the rooms in the castle dust free, Renfield's main job is to signal the audience this is a comedy, and not to expect something else. The comedy is an essential ingredient in this formula. If your lead character is a riff on an historical figure who was a sadistic mass murderer, playing it deadpan is a whole different category of movie.The music, much of it by Lucan Wolf, also adds significantly to the enterprise and the feeling its a 'real' movie this time.Its not all great.-'Dracula' is pretty terrible. Even though he's only in the first 15 min he still sets up the wrong tone for the rest. Why didn't Glut just bring back Arthur Roberts from his last vampire opus and call him 'Dracula'? He was fine as Ruthven. They had it nearly right in the very first one with William Smith. At least he could convey a weary gravitas just standing in front of the camera. With Tony Clay, they may be trying to do a riff on 'Count Frankenhausen' from a couple of fondly remembered Mexican movies (The Bloody Vampire, etc) dubbed by K Gordon Murray. (They even replicate the glowing eye effect from the Mexican movies.) But to say they fall a wee bit short is putting it mildly.Silicone implants in the Egypt of the Pharaohs. I guess this was another lost art of the ancients. But an inevitable part of any Don Glut production. To be fair, some of these short scenes look to be ported over from earlier movies.Still, the pluses far outweigh the minuses, if you go into it with the right attitude. Remember, its a comedy. If you prefer the sickly aroma of the real Countess Bathory, try 'Hostel II'. Myself, after a hard day I'd prefer this for distraction.
