Our first guest writer is the very talented but relatively unknown      Tom Tobie .     Mr. Tobie has won writing awards for his excellent science fiction.

Here is Part 1 of  Tom's critique;

 The Three Faces of Adamson's Dracula, Or Conked out on the Count
by Tom Tobie

Bad writing, bad directing, bad makeup, and an entire plethora of other "bads" have all -too-often made a well intentioned film a mockery rather than a masterpiece., and it would seem that to many this is never more obvious than in low budgeted horror/sci-fi movies.  And while many of us might be inclined to believe that something so facile as limited monetary resources determine the film's overall outcome, this assumption falls flat when one takes into account the scores of well-made ( and genuinely scary) low budget genre pictures which exist, including, among others, the recent Blair Witch Project.  However, it is far more often that such fright films turn out to be very badly made, often to the point of being ridiculous rather than frightening. And the major reason for this isn't so much budget, as it is what's done with the film and why.

Whether during the hey-day of the drive-in, or even within today's video boom, the low budget fright flick is all too often regarded by film producers as nothing more than a way to make fast money from undiscriminating kids and teens. Such features always have been shot on very short filming schedules, with little to no regards as to how the film turns out as long as it can be sold as quickly as possible. Ergo; is it any wonder that so many fright-film movie monsters turn out to be laughable instead of horrifying?

As an example, let's take a look at three films which all concern one of horrdom's most respected icons: Count Dracula --- as interpreted in the works of the late producer-director Al Adamson.

Like many of the low budget filmmakers of his day, Adamson was extremely opportunistic. He usually shot quick, cheap pictures dealing with whatever genre was currently in vogue; be it adult westerns (Five Bloody Graves, 1967), blaxploitation (Stud Brown, 1973, Black Eliminator, 1977), biker flicks ( Satan's Sadists, 1969; Angel's Wild Women, 1972) or any variety of sex and horror features. Furthermore, when he lacked a budget sufficient enough to allow him to shoot an entire feature, he would simply direct a sequence of scenes to be added to another, often unfinished film by another director, or else he might integrate new scenes into one of his previous features (which he would often re-release under a new title). Because of an above average usage of such techniques, Adamson's filmology (and many of his films) can tend to be rather confusing. Ah well ...

Blood of Dracula's Castle, filmed in 1967, but re-released in '69, was Adamson's first take on the Dracula mythos, and it demonstrates what happens when a film is made with the emphasis upon a salable product rather than art or even entertainment. The plot concerns a young photographer (Gene O' Shane) who inherits a castle in the California dessert (that's right!) from a very old uncle.  What he doesn't know is that for sixty-odd years his uncle has been renting out the castle to a bizarre household headed by none other than Count and Countess Dracula (who have "cleverly" assumed the aliases of  Count and Countess Townsend). well, the photographer and his fiancee want to move in and set up the castle as a combination home and film studio, which proves highly inconvenient for the "Townsends" for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they keep several beautiful young women chained up in the cellar to supply them with blood. (The victims' blood is extracted with hypodermic syringes to prevent "complications" ... as it were).

OK, it's a simple plot, but not necessarily a bad one. The problem, as aforementioned is that no one really cared about the movie simply because it was just a "horror" movie. ( In fact, the person who distributed the film cared so little that he underhandedly "packaged" it with another project --- and so neither Adamson or his cast or crew ever got paid for their own movie!) For starters, Dracula is played by Alex D'Arcy, a former "continental" actor, who is perhaps best known for his role in the Marilyn Monroe classic How to Marry a Millionaire.  Darcy plays the Count as a stodgy, middle-aged, overly-comfortable flop; with a stiff upper lip and a smoking jacket rather than a cape and fangs. He seems too much like some harmless old chap from some upper crust British club, who would be more likely to bury his nose in the stock pages or regale folks with his tales of tiger hunts than batten on the blood of innocent maidens.

* End of Part 1 *

Thanks for the interesting critique and look behind the scenes, Tom. Good luck on getting your web page up so we can read more from you.  Readers, I will give you Tom's URL as soon as he sends it to me.

Would you like to be in our Guest Writer Spot? Your quality short writings can also be featured if you e-mail them to me. Sorry,  no financial rewards. But you'll  receive  exposure with your byline. At least, fellow writers, we appreciate you here.  Submit articles, poems, teasers or "Part 1" of stories.  One page long or shorter.  Specify if you'd like your e-mail shown for reader feedback .If  someone asks to buy your work, the request will be forwarded to you. Not responsible for theft of your writing by cads or any other  liability.

Email