The Satanic Rites of Dracula
The police and British security forces call in Professor Van Helsing to help them investigate Satanic ritual which has been occurring in a large country house, and which has been attended by a government minister, an eminent scientist and secret service chief. The owner of the house is a mysterious property tycoon who is found to be behind a sinister plot involving a deadly plague. It is in fact Dracula who, sick of his interminable existence, has decided that he must end it all in the only possible way- by destroying every last potential victim.
- Stars:Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Michael Coles, William Franklyn, Freddie Jones, Joanna Lumley, Richard Vernon, Barbara Yu Ling, Patrick Barr, Richard Mathews, Lockwood West, Valerie Van Ost, Maurice O'Connell, Peter Adair, Maggie Fitzgerald,
- Director:Alan Gibson,
- Writer:Don Houghton (screenplay)
In London in the 1970s, Scotland Yard police investigators think they have uncovered a case of vampirism. They call in an expert vampire researcher named Van Helsing (a descendant of the ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Satanic Rites of Dracula torrent reviews
(us) wrote: Its too bad the Jews (basically hollywood) banned Mel, b/c he still makes good movies. This isn't the godfather, but so much more entertaining than anything seth rogan, jonah hill or adam sandler put out. See it!
(us) wrote: El actor, productor y escritor Diego Luna nos entrega un filme escrito y dirigido por el. El cual se presento, sin estar nominado, en Cannes.Abel es un nio de 9 aos que tras la partida de su pap por el "sueo americano" sufre un grave trauma, que nunca se explica completamente, este lo lleva a estar internado 2 aos en una clnica psiquitrica. El filme inicia cuando le permiten volver con su familia tras mostrar cierta estabilidad con medicamento. No explico ms por que podra perder la originalidad para quienes no han visto la pelcula.La guin muestra ser original, algo predecible pero sabe manejar un tema serio con muchos toques cmicos, los cuales se agradecen pero llegan a saturar la cinta y pierde seriedad. El final predecible no ocurre, denota un miedo por tomar este camino (me entendern cuando la vean).No va a ser una pelcula que marque historia en el cine nacional, pero si es mucho mejor que los filmes americanos que se proyectan actualmente.
(ca) wrote: Tpica peli que siempre dejaba pasar para ver en otro momento... y no me equivocaba; Es correcta desde lo visual y nada mas, cuando una peli de accin aburre esta todo dicho... Daba para mucho mas...
(jp) wrote: I enjoyed this work by Hong, one of his more accessible works. Again about man-woman relationships and this one is entertaining, with some philosophical sidebars on fixations, obsessions. It is quite watcheable and easy to understand, moreso than "woman is the future of man". Enjoy..
(ru) wrote: Beautifully filmed art house movie. The pace is really too slow for my taste. I get to see this because this is suppose to be a good adaptation of Haruki Murakami's story. I'm a fan of Haruki Murakami but I think his stories are better to be left in dead tree format.
(de) wrote: I love this movie simply because they actually kiss in this movie. All the barriers and fake hugs finally go down. Yeah it's not the greatest hindi movie but I have yet to hear a better song sung by a whore, Par Desi.
(au) wrote: I remember this coming out in 1996 and thinking they had just ripped off the film title from 'Braveheart' which came out the year before or 'Thunderheart'...just saying.So an evil King gets killed by a small bunch of rebellious peasants. His ugly ginger son takes his place but also gets wounded so he's taken by good knight Quaid to a Scottish dragon which can heal humans apparently. He is healed and made to promise he will be good unlike his father, well he lies and turns out even worse, didn't see that coming huh. This angers Quaid as he feels the dragon twisted the young Kings heart so he vows revenge on all dragons.The catch is that further down the line Quaid's knight realises that a worth while deal can be struck with the dragon for monetary gain. So they begin a partnership where the dragon scares the poor dumb peasants and Quaid rides in and saves them...for a few pieces of gold.So the film is set in olde England and does have a reasonable realistic approach in that sense, or at least they try. Problem being the film doesn't look anything like England but in fact looks exactly like where they shot it, eastern Europe. I did get the feeling that most of the budget for this film was used on creating the CGI dragon as everything else looks pretty poor really. This King only seems to be King of a small valley, there is no other mention of the rest of England or any other people outside this valley. His castle is pokey, he doesn't seem to have many troops, there seems to be more peasants than troops or even buildings to house them, everyone wears the same outfits all the time, the wigs are all obvious and hilariously bad and the film keeps circling around the same grassy/rocky areas over and over.The effects at the time were big, they were big time effects believe me, this film garnered much attention because of its CGI dragon. Looking back now its nicely done on the whole but obviously with time the cracks are now evident and the CGI shines through. There are some nice shots when 'Draco' is wet and when he breathes fire, plus the flying sequences are quite good but when he chats with humans it becomes a bit iffy. And yes Draco is his name, draco the dragon, surely they could come up with something a bit more original?.The idea of a knight and a dragon teaming up for a living during the medieval period is a good one but it doesn't quite feel fully serviced here. We only get a very very bare bones look at other peasants, other villages and how they go about this agreement. No sooner have we seen one badly interpreted village scam the plot goes off down this rebellion route against the evil young King. We then get a very very very average looking final battle sequence against...I dunno, about 50 horseback troops and about 100 peasants who were conveniently trained up in the art of war not more than a few hours before.There isn't really any decent lore in this film either, nothing on dragons much. The fact Draco can speak is hugely important I would of thought, it shows he is an intelligent beast, not just a dumb killing machine, surely humans could learn a great deal from this creature. I also want to know if all dragons can speak in this universe, they clearly have magic powers and possible immortality with a human, sheesh there is loads to discover here but we get nothing!. Why on earth would people wanna kill all these super intelligent sentient beings off?!!.It really does all feel a bit low rent...accept for the dragon. In fact the dragon is the best thing in the film really, Quaid looks bad in his blonde wig, Dina Meyer looks ridiculous in her peasant garb, Isaacs is wasted, Postlethwaite is also wasted but Thewlis is actually a decent slimy King...in a bad ginger wig. The choice of Connery as Draco is a good one, no complaints there, in fact its perfect.A fun cheerful fantasy with a surprisingly stirring orchestral score no doubt, but looking back its all very hokey and quite poorly made if you look closer. The selling point is Draco obviously and without him I think this would have been a disaster. Its a B-movie with an A grade effect in it basically.
(us) wrote: d brown favorite movie
(de) wrote: A great mash-up of Aliens and Thing. This movie was well acted and had some pretty creative gore and special effects.Good actors with Peter Weller, Ernie Hudson, Daniel Stern and Amanda Pays.Some deep sea drillers get more than they are looking for when they uncover a Russian ship that was sunk for a reason.
(mx) wrote: a very good movie but it\s slow moving and 3 hrs long. Took me 3 tries to finish it and I fell asleep 3 times.
(mx) wrote: A bit tongue-in-cheek; certainly compared with the earlier (50's?) version I remember from childhood. I wonder if some aspects of the plot are a bit lost on the younger generation these days.
(ag) wrote: One of the funniest, most poignant and thematically rich films ever made. Peter Sellers gives one of the all-time great film performances. An essential viewing for all film lovers.
(mx) wrote: The narrative is clumsy at times, and the attempts at philosophical revelation fall flat, but this adds up to far more than the sum of its parts. Tsui Hark's operatic direction hits some incredible highs, and Chiu Man-Chuek is almost peerless. The scene where he unleashes his One-armed fighting style for the first time is one of the most joyous action scenes you'll *ever* see. Otherwise, the film resonates the most when it breathes. Tsui Hark depicts a bleak, amoral, and complex world - but it's a pity that the dialogue and pacing can't match the eloquency of the direction. Most telling is the difference between the narrator and the crazed hermit girl. The former inspires far less sympathy than the latter, despite her countless lines of dialogue.