BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

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.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

mindymktg I liked it! This film is a late 1950s take on the Dracula tale, involving teenagers, a local parish house and its denizen, including the reverend in charge. Dracula, as portrayed by Francis Lederer, is handsome and menacing. The story moves along quickly and kept me interested throughout. The finale is a horror story classic.

gavin6942 After a vampire (Francis Lederer) leaves his native Balkans, he murders a Czech artist, assumes his identity, and moves in with the dead man's American cousins.What to say about this film? It has Dracula, but not the same Dracula we know and love. He hates mirrors, stakes and crosses... he dislikes daylight. But he does not look like Bela Lugosi. I guess neither does Christopher Lee, though.There is one second of the film shot in color, and a good choice of shot, too. The picture in general is pretty good, if a bit dark, and it is a shame that the Dracula story was taken by Hammer and this story was forgotten (though we cannot fault Hammer for doing a good job).

retrorocketx This is a real gem of a vampire movie - an intense, tight, brilliant, and satisfying movie set 1950s small town America. As other reviewers have noted, the story is essentially identical to Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, but with the added twist of vampirism.The Gothic angle is absent, which might turn off some traditionalists. In its place is a setting featuring two cultural icons of late 1950s movies - idyllic small town/suburbia threatened by outside forces; and teenagers taking control in times of crisis and mastering challenges. (It is fun to see the youth movement and rebellion of the 1960s foreshadowed in the late 1950s).The vampire, played expertly by Frances Lederer, is charming and sophisticated, but in each sentence he utters, there are suspicious undertones. There is a creepy feeling every moment this guy is on the screen. Lederer gives a brilliant vampire performance, one might even argue he is one of the best vampires ever. The young woman threatened by this vampire also gives an excellent performance. Her character has to move from schoolgirlish, to suspicious and finally to terror. She is quite convincing. The other actors do a fine job in support.The movie is well filmed, and there are several fun little moments of surprise and terror. The dialog is good, and there are some fun bits of vampire cosmology tossed in here and there, with lines like, "If my behavior seems different, perhaps it is because it serves a higher purpose than to find acceptance in this dull and useless world." For some reason, crosses are extremely important and powerful in this movie. A cross is an instant vampire-stopper. In contrast, a vampire's most powerful weapon in this movie is his hypnotic power. Therefore, a constant battle of hypnotism verses cross is present from start to finish, with the climactic confrontation scene featuring a final duel.This ending scene was a bit unsatisfying to me, it must be a tough one to film - how do you capture hypnotism verses willpower and make it visually dramatic? However, in spite of a slightly weak ending, this is a heck of a vampire movie. If you like vampires, this movie belongs in your collection.

BaronBl00d Not a bad Dracula updated adaptation as a man readying for a journey in Romania is killed and his identity stolen(seems to have been a problem even then). He moves in with his "family' only to start wreaking havoc in a small Californian town. The small town atmosphere is carried off fairly nicely in large part to the small town characterizations from the cast - most of whom were either character actors or unknowns at the time. Exception is Francis Lederer as the vampire with a very thick accent, but actually he gives some credibility to the role of the brooding, oft charming, malignant force cast into the lives of these newly found innocents. John Wengraf plays the Van Helsing type and is interesting when on screen yet the part is way too underdeveloped. There is not much for plot here to be honest and the story quickly wraps up in the last third, but director Paul Landres has competence(and a whole television episode list as his resume)and creates some effective scenes. The scene where Rachel is "dreaming" of seeing the vampire in her boudoir and then is wakened quickly by her brother even gave me a bit of a jolt. The acting is okay but pedestrian, and there is not much here in terms of great sets or effects. Nonetheless The Return of Dracula is a nice little film with a different twist to Dracula lore that I found interestingly conceived.