Maybe I'm not up on my 60's/70's vampire lore, but why did Dracula fail to convert Alice (Linda Hayden) to the ranks of the undead? He obviously mesmerizes her to do his bidding, yet he fails to ever taste of her sweet blood (although he attempts to at the very end). By contrast he converts Alice's friend right away. This doesn't make sense.
shareThat’s a good question Wuchak, but I’m not sure there’s an answer. This is a solid movie, but it contains more than a few head scratchers. For example, when Alice calls out to Lucy just after the funeral, Lucy comes running over, all smiles. There’s nary a word about Alice’s father being dead. The ending is another big question, although most agree the church has suddenly become consecrated again, thus overwhelming Dracula. I think. The biggest question is why did they give Dracula so little to do, and with such lame dialogue? My goodness, you have Christopher Lee and that voice of his! Scars of Dracula was next, and while it’s a step down from TtBoD, it uses Lee to much better effect.
sharewhy did they give Dracula so little to do, and with such lame dialogue?
when Alice calls out to Lucy just after the funeral, Lucy comes running over, all smiles. There’s nary a word about Alice’s father being dead.
It doesn't always have to make sense, it's a movie.
shareIt does if the creators want to make a quality movie that holds up for decades, which takes good writers.
shareThis one is still being talked about, isn't it? And it's not high quality writing.
shareI didn't say "talked about," I said "holds up," meaning holds up to scrutiny.
And, besides, what are we talking about here? The dubious writing, which isn't a good thing.
Thankfully, it has a great first act with "the circle" of three Affluent British thrill-seekers and the Aleister Crowley-like Lord Courtley, as well as the creative resurrection of Drac. And winsome Linda Hayden doesn't hurt.