Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

jessegehrig A bucket of turds or perhaps a bouquet of turds. Some of the scenes have the camera placed a parking lot away from the actors delivering dialog. I presume the actors are also emoting in these across the parking lot scenes but I can't be certain because they are very far away. The horror scenes never materialize, at best they are murky thanks to bad lighting. The love scenes tease but never pay out, like nudity would be considered tasteless but the acting and direction during these love scenes is so bad, gratuitous nudity would be a real step up. I guess my real problem with this movie is that even by 70's film standards, its shot like a made-for-TV movie. Every choice from casting to editing to make up so on and so forth, predetermined by a trusted formula. Nothing ever appears real, not people, words, or place.

MARIO GAUCI Not owning the rights to the Bram Stoker creation, AIP decided to invent their own vampire myth: the result is Dracula-in-all-but-name, being suave (sporting gracefully graying hair), cunning (even when caught off-guard, he manages to assert himself and turn the tables on interlopers), psychic (amusingly, he doubles as a medium at private séances!) and feral (his creepy dashes for prospective victims, seemingly out of nowhere, with blood-red eyes and arms outstretched actually gave me a jolt on a couple of occasions!). As played by Robert Quarry, he is quite creditable and effectively gave Christopher Lee (Hammer Film's Dracula incarnate) a run for his money.Incidentally, he anticipated the other Count's transition to modern times by 2 years and actually managed it a whole lot better (with, thankfully, little resort to Camp). That said, in the attempt to look at the phenomenon with a contemporary mindset, we get a contradiction – people repeatedly scoff at the idea of vampirism in our age, claiming it is a fabrication of literature and cinema, which rather suggests that they are aware of what it entails…and, yet, they are still surprised at what should be its predictable outcome and are required besides to pore over ancient tomes in search of a way to fight it! Though the film was given the alternate title of THE LOVES OF COUNT IORGA, VAMPIRE {sic}, which is actually borne by the copy I watched (for the record, this had been shown on local TV in my childhood but I first caught it years later on British Cable TV), it does not overstress the romantic angle. Indeed, one girl is shown quenching her unnatural thirst for blood by literally draining the life out of a kitten! The presence of a sinister (that is to say, hulking and deformed) acolyte is, admittedly, a bit of a cliché – but Yorga himself seems to have moved with the times (in spite of his traditional attire), since he is shown jadedly presiding over a lesbian vampire show in his living-room! The stylish film was produced by Michael Macready (who also assumes the requisite heroic persona on-screen, though the doctor-turned-vampire-hunter played by Roger Perry actually has an even more central role!), son of distinguished character actor George Macready (who generously supplies the portentous narration here and which, at the start, erroneously refers to vampires as "The Living Dead"{!}: indeed, the whole film – scripted by Kelljan himself – aspires to a certain literariness but often merely results in being verbose…which, however, it often works around by having characters conversing about the unusual events in which they had been thrust presented as voice-over laid on exterior crowd scenes!). The climax is a downbeat one: while Yorga is almost comically disposed of by being pierced (typically, through the heart) with a splintered broomstick, the lone-survivor hero sustains a vampiric attack from his own girlfriend (herself newly-inducted into the ranks of the Undead)! AIP presumably turned a fast profit with this one, seeing how they immediately commissioned a sequel (and whose own viewing followed that of the original in the current "Halloween Challenge"). However, they would soon come up with yet another (and even more outrageous) variation on vampire lore with the cult Blaxploitation offering BLACULA (1972) – which, in turn, led to the as-yet-unwatched SCREAM BLACULA SCREAM! (1973; helmed by Kelljan himself!)...

rdatsun If its one thing I know its vampires. And this film hits all the mark for me, it just a shame it not as well know in the world of horror cinema out there but hey it happens. Still famous or no, It been my pleasure to happen upon Count Yorga and even moreso to see it in its entirety after purchasing it from a Best Buy along with its sequel "Return of Count Yorga".Premise: The film opens with a coffin being transported to Los Angeles with a sinister atmosphere around it. We then go to a séance where a group of people are trying to contact a recently deceased mother of one of their own, Donna, hosted by Yorga himself. He seem normal enough, charming and polite to a fault. However we quickly find out otherwise when he attacks two of the party guests when their car "conveniently" break down outside his manor. From there it only proceed to get worse for the humans as the girl of the couple, Erica, show strange symptoms and bite marks on her neck and the males of the group start to suspect their something not right about Yorga. But can they figure it out before Yorga strikes again? Plot-wise, it very simple and to the point. Like a modern day Dracula, only the characters, good or bad, are much more genre savvy about what going on and what to do. Though that said, when you see the "heroes" of the story you can pretty much predict the outcome for them. Is that a bad thing? Heck no. Its a horror flick after all and that half the fun. This is Yorga's movie anyway and Robert Quary give a great performance as the title vampire. Sly, slick and menacing all at once. This is a guy you just love to root for even if he is the bad guy.And of course every vampire needs victims and the vamps (i.e. woman) here are just as excellent. They have sort of a zombie vibe to them sans the decaying flesh part, yet that makes them more attractive (if your into that sorta thing). What adds a extra point for me is that they wisely give the female vamp just as much screen time as Yorga, so you get to see them in all their undead glory.There is a bit of fanservice (breasts showing, partial nudity) as this was mean as a soft core porno flick. But nothing overly gratuitous (one scene that might rise eyebrows is when Yorga has two vamps um...cuddle). Same goes for gore, there a little of it but it very cheap looking. So nothing those easily offended or too squeamish should raise a fuss over.Overall, the horror is pretty dated and you can tell it was used as a drive-in flick (the trailer even looks as such). But if your a fan of vampire films, this is one you don't want to pass up for your collection. Rest in Peace Robert Quarry (who died in 2009), thanks for entertaining us.

mikelcat Excellent vampire film because of the acting presence of Robert Quarry , who although an American can portray that old world style sophistication that I had not scene since Bela Lugosi's unforgettable interpretation of Dracula .Quarry is magnetic as Count Yorga , his twisted sense of superiority and confidence in the face of Roger Perry's character is fascinating as they spar with each other verbally and then Perry's character finally succumbs to Yorga's minions . Bob Kellijan does a great job with this and the follow-up ''The Return of Count Yorga '' of capitalizing on Quarry's appeal which carries the film .Hail Robert Quarry ! anyone who can make a vampire role his own is a great actor , Lugosi's footsteps are huge but Mr. Quarry holds his own !!