Alicia I love this movie so much

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Pluskylang Great Film overall

utgard14 This really should have been more fun than it is. I mean, Dracula's Dog just sounds like campy greatness. Unfortunately, it's a tired, mostly boring affair that looks like it was made for TV and takes itself too seriously. The story starts out where many Dracula movies have gone before, with someone removing the stake from the corpse and reviving Dracula. Only this time they don't revive Dracula but his guard dog Zoltan and his trainer or whatever (played by Reggie Nalder, one of moviedom's all-time best faces). Then the trainer takes Zoltan on a hunt for Dracula's sole living descendant (Michael Pataki), who has a dog of his own so expect a clash of canines at some point. This is all kind of dumb and could have been a lot better with a little more self-awareness and humor about what a 'dog' of an idea the movie is built around. See it if you must but keep expectations low.

Theo Robertson People of a certain age will remember the good old days in the late 1970s and early 80s when BBC2 used to show horror double bills on Saturday nights during the Summer months . We all had our favourites that we're shown and by the same token there would always be a movie that stuck out in its mediocrity . I can't remember the exact details of when it was broadcast but ZOLTAN was the movie that had the distinction of being the worst film of the season when I first saw it and the passage of time hasn't improved it in anyway The reason I originally disliked it was because it didn't feel like a cinematic film , more like one of those made for TV productions and rewatching it again the feeling still remains with the very static camera and the entirely cheap feel to everything . Not only that but we get some cute all American family that only exist in TVMs and add to this some uber-sweet puppy and the illusion is complete .This sets up another problem and that is film gives the impression it doesn't know what its market is . Family friendly entertainment or straight forward horror . There is a scene involving a death of a trekker but is graphic enough to alienate anyone thinking this is a tame TVM and jars with the rest of the film . Some of the other scenes that are trying to be scary and horror orientated just come across as silly There is another flaw and there's a considerable amount of obvious plot holes . The message boards point them out such as a servant of Dracula being resurrected , sailing to America and yet arrives in America before a Romanian detective who leaves the next day in an aeroplane . There's also an unanswered question as to why the servant and his hound need to find the Dracula descendant in America when the original Dracula remains in his tomb . One plot hole I noticed myself is how likely is it for someone to escape from the Stalinist regime of Romania and arrive in America without being caught by the authorities of either country ? In summary ZOLTAN is a lame and dumb horror movie that won't appeal to anyone who has no interest in the genre . Horror fans will find it slow and boring and think they're watching something from the Hallmark Channel . If it was a dog it'd probably end in up in a refuge or failing that taken to the vets to be put to sleep - a fate it also bestows on the audience

DPMay This film was known in the UK as "Zoltan - Hound Of Dracula". Now, a 1970s horror flick with that sort of title would probably make you think of the Hammer films, but in fact this production has nothing of the look or feel of a Hammer film. In fact, I'm not sure it has the look or feel of *any* other horror film I've seen, because Zoltan - Hound Of Dracula is really something quite unique.Much of it is shot in bright, sunny open countryside, a setting which tends not to lend itself very well to the horror genre, although to be fair most of this picture's suspense scenes are reserved for the night-time sequences.The film's 'star' is a big black dog, Zoltan, a vampire in its own right. Through a brief flashback sequence we learn that many years ago he gained his vampire status after being bitten by Dracula, and thereafter served as the faithful companion to the famous vampire. And no, I've no idea why Dracula, a being that can supposedly adopt the guise of a bat or a wolf, would have need of a pet dog, but there you go. Maybe Dracula had a sentimental side to him where animals were concerned - after all, he did apparently pose to have his photo taken with Zoltan! Anyway, at some point in the past Dracula and his clan, including Zoltan, were stopped with the customary stakes through the heart, and laid to rest in an underground tomb in Eastern Europe. Military explosions open this tomb in the present day, and at this point the film is very vague as to why things happen - suffice to say contrived events lead to Zoltan coming back to life, along with his original owner, the semi-vampiric Veidt Schmidt, but not Dracula himself, which is probably just as well, because in the brief flashback glimpses we have of the Count, actor Michael Pataki looks quite ridiculous in the traditional Bela Lugosi attire.Without the proper Dracula to serve, Zoltan and Schmidt apparently have to seek out a new master from the same bloodline (yes, run that one by me again, please...) and so head off to Los Angeles to track down his only known living descendant, to turn him into a vampire. And no, it's not explained how they know where he is. Luckily, local vampire expert Inspector Branco (Jose Ferrer) realises what's going on and heads off in pursuit to stop them.The descendant, Michael Drake, is a happy family man who is just in the process of taking his wife, kids and dogs off on a camping trip to get away from it all.The bulk of the film consists of Drake and his family being terrorised by Zoltan and the other dogs, who get bitten and become vampiric themselves. Despite an overall air of cheapness and lack of depth, there are some good sequences, particularly when Drake finds himself trapped in first a hut, and later his car, surrounded by a pack of dogs clawing away at his defences, intent on getting to him, or also the brutal savaging of a lone camper. The titular canine, Zoltan, looks quite effective throughout, and certainly isn't an animal you'd want to cross on a dark night.You have to give the film some credit for trying to come up with something a little different. The Dracula aspect of this film is more a marketing ploy and the plot might have benefited from having the Dracula references removed altogether. The character of Veidt Schmidt doesn't do very much either, but given that a dog can't talk, he's really just a lazy plot device to explain Zoltan's motivations at any given point.The musical score is low key and unmemorable. This is a film that stretches credulity at times, but it is undemanding, lively and original. It's far from being a great film, but there are certainly worse ones around. If your expectations aren't too high, then you might find it enjoyable. And the closing shot is quite good!

Matthew Janovic You have to hand-it (the booby-prize) to the Bands. This was the final-film by the patriarch of this schlock-horror family, and it's hard to describe. Disaster just doesn't work here, and I think Albert Band knew he had a turkey-script, so he made-the-best of it. His 1950s psychological-thriller/horror, "I Bury the Living" is excellent, but this is...wow, pretty bad. So, when your backers (UK and Yugoslavian) don't want to pay the Bram Stoker Estate money for the rights to Dracula, what do you do? Exactly! You do a tie-in, with a story about DRACULA'S DOG. Yes, his dog. Yes, it's as absurd and ridiculous as you might imagine. There is even a scene where the dog is wearing a turtle-neck...and operating a hearse! The story--what little there is--begins with Russian (obviously Yugoslavian) soldiers dynamiting a hill. They accidentally uncover a tomb that holds Dracula's manservant (Reggie Nadler, who looks creepy out-of-makeup), and his doberman, Zoltan. Yeah, it's retarded, I know. Yes, the stupid-soldiers release the half-vampire, and vampire-dog, and the "fun" begins. A lot of the story revolves around some followers of Dracula trying to make one of his living-descendants a vampire (WTF?!). The writing is full-of-holes you could drive a semi-truck through. At this time, even Hammer knew when to give-up on Dracula, having extended it into the mid-1970s. But this film is hilariously-bad, so it is watchable for all the unintentional humor it pummels the viewer with.I'm 100%-certain that this is the ONLY film in human-history to contain a flashback scene for a vampire-dog character. I nearly fell out of my couch--could this be?! Did I really see what I thought I saw? I had to rewind my DVD-player. Yes, it was real, and there was even more hilarity. To make it short: the dog returns to America (where one goes for "success"--yeah, bullshit) with Nadler and some vampirized-dogs to sink-his-fangs into the descendant of Dracula, making him a vampire. Still, Albert Band's son has directed films that are much-worse with his excrement-mill, Full Moon. The only noteworthy thing here is that Stan Winston did some of his earliest makeup here, but doesn't get to shine much. Oh yeah, and the dog "talks" too, telepathically with the Nadler-character. Sucks, and not like a vampire, but good for some yucks. Not scary, unless you look at it as how stupid people with too-much money can be, they paid for this.