Another fond childhood nightmare down the shitter. Still has its moments: a good shot revealing the heroine's vampire-induced madness by focusing on her ankles as she moves around her trashed apartment, one of the young men lighting a match after a blackout, then looking up into the face of Count Yorga (a shot expanded upon to greater effect in Kelljan's Scream, Blacula, Scream), and the tense climax -- when the villain mocks your call for help, you know you're in deep shit. I don't even mind the oft-derided narration, which attempts in the opening scene to bridge the gap between gothic Hammer horror and the sunlit, New Agey world of 1970 Los Angeles. But the integration isn't as successful as I originally thought. How did I miss how fakey and House of Waxy Yorga's inner chamber looks? Why did I think that the film had a creepy Hotel California vibe when it's just underexposed? Why didn't I notice that it was originally intended as a soft-core cheapie (see original title, on the DVD print)? Speaking of which, how could I have possibly missed the poor lighting, where certain nightime scenes look exactly like the daytime they were filmed in, and the blotchy, flat look that would embarrass the producers of stag films? Still worth a look, especially for the last fifteen minutes, but I'm thinking I seriously underrated the more professional Blacula sequel.
Where we saw it: dvd | We deign to rate it: 45 outta 100Is this the one with Michael Murphy? If so, I turned it off a quarter of the way through and watched a "King of the Hill" rerun.
Posted by: Scott at January 18, 2005 01:42 PMThat's the one. I'd say try again, but if you didn't get past the seance (which I think is pretty decent), then no, don't bother.
Posted by: kza at January 18, 2005 01:47 PM