Blacula

1972 "Blacula! - Dracula's Soul Brother!"
5.7| 1h33m| PG| en| More Info
Released: 25 August 1972 Released
Producted By: American International Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

An 18th century African prince is turned into a vampire while visiting Transylvania. Two centuries later, he rises from his coffin attacking various residents of Los Angeles and meets Tina, a woman who he believes is the reincarnation of his deceased wife.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

American International Pictures

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever
Beanbioca As Good As It Gets
Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.
Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.
Rainey Dawn This one is definitely underrated. I'm not saying this is the world's best vampire film - but it's a heck of a lot better than it's rating. I a good, solid vampire movie.Some will start to feel bad for Mamuwalde aka Blacula towards the end of the film but I find that for me it was at the very beginning that he had my sympathy. He was an African Prince (Mamuwalde) with a beautiful bride that was working to stop the slave trade and of all people it was Dracula he had to deal with. I was Dracula himself that turned/cursed the Prince - he is now doomed to walk the earth as the vampire Blacula.The movie is not only a fun horror film but a beautiful romance film. How the film ends may surprise you... it's unexpected but make sense to the story.8/10
mlevans SPOILERS! This was a film I had heard about for years. I recalled J.J. describing it as "a brother gives a bunch of foxy mammas hickeys," or something of the sort on Good Times.I actually found it quite entertaining. It stacks up well with other 1970s vampire films. I never quite got the "Blaxploitation" tag for films about black characters in the 1970s. The very name of the genre indicates blacks are being taken advantage of. If films with primarily black casts, aimed largely at black audiences is exploitation, what is the rap/hip hop industry?In any case, I found it an enjoyable film. Bass-voiced and classically-trained William Marshall was perfect for the role of Prince Mamuwalde, who came back after 200 years as Blacula. Thalmus Rasulala, a frequent face in TV shows, was outstanding as police detective Dr. Gordon Thomas. (Again, a black cop with an M.D., solving crimes & apparently well-respected by at least part of a large metropolitan police force in the early 1970s is exploitation?)Vonetta McGee and Denise Nicholas are strong as the two female leads, especially McGee in the dual role as the 18th-century princess and the modern-day Tina. No doubt, 99 percent of the audience was rooting for Mamualde to make her a vampire in time to escape and join him in vampiric matrimony. Mamuwalde is the only case I can think of in film history of a vampire suicide, at the end.Overall it is worthwhile watching for anyone who loves the vampire genre, "blaxploitation" films or who is a fan of any of the primary cast members.
disinterested_spectator Obviously, this is a blaxploitation film about a vampire of African descent. The movie is all right at first, but then it goes stupid. The detective knows he is after a vampire, and he knows all the rules about killing vampires with sun exposure or a wooden stake through the heart, and he knows that a cross will make a vampire cringe. But when he goes to the place where he suspects that Blacula keeps his coffin, he goes with cops who are armed with nothing but pistols, which are ineffective, of course. So cops get killed left and right. But the detective has a cross for himself, of course. Oh well, it could have been worse. Blacula could have been played by Christopher Lee in blackface.
TheRedDeath30 There are some movies that we see as young children and they form a livelong love in us. No matter how many cracks we may notice as we rewatch the film in our later years, we still hold onto that childhood love. This movie pretty much has the opposite effect for me. I loved this movie as a kid. I was obsessed with the old film monsters and anything with a vampire was cool with me, especially one like William Marshall's Blacula who was such as classically Gothic vampire, yet modern and hip at the same time.As I'm now in my 30s and have re-watched the movie several times in recent years, I find that the cracks are far outweighing the positives and my opinion of this movie is lessening with each view.For those who haven't seen, it's essentially an update of the Dracula story. An old prince becomes a vampire, fast forward to the modern day and he finds the reincarnation of his lost love. Death and romance ensue, queue dramatic ending. The problems begin in the opening scenes with the least impressive Dracula you'll ever see sprouting some racism before cursing the African purse with a life of the undead and the name Blacula. This scene also features several vampire minions who can't hold a candle to Lugosi's brides. They are like bad DAWN OF THE DEAD rejects with blue face paint and overgrown fangs.I won't even get into the homosexual designer scene as it's been discussed enough. I don't think it's always fair to hold antiquated values against a movie and clearly this was long before our PC modern days, so you can't expect the same realistic portrayal of gays. Blacula makes his appearance and starts his killing spree, but the movie is really bereft of any atmosphere or tension. Lugosi and Lee's Dracula movies had the Gothic cobweb and shadows look. Modern films like THE LOST BOYS or NEAR DARK may be set in urban setting but use them for maximum effect. This is often like a bad 70s cop movie with a vampire as the villain. That extends greatly to the soundtrack, which is full of cheesy wah pedal guitars and brass horns which make me giggle at them much more than they establish any effective mood.I really enjoy a lot of AIP movies, particularly the Corman/ Poe films from a few years before this. At a time when horror was changing and becoming gorier and more modern, AIP was still able to retain that old-school vibe and present good Gothic chillers without resorting to bloody deaths. They attempt the same sort of thing here, but it just falls flat most of the time.What saves this movie is Marshall's portrayal of the vampire. He's still cool as hell, whether I'm 9 years old or 39. He's a perfect mixture of suave coolness in his "human guise" and animalistic evil in his vampire presence (though I never quite understood why he grows extra hair). He essentially saves this from being just another average low budget forgotten horror flick to being the memorable movie that is still watched today.