Fred I'm giving this a "six" because anybody who seeks out this movie will know, more or less, what he or she is getting into. The Nilsson songs do work with the melancholy of this plot: Dracula's son, who was conceived with a non-vampire woman, wants to cease being a vampire so he can experience love. Nilsson's performance isn't demonstrative and I found his remoteness appropriate. Ringo was a wizard in MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR and he's Merlin here. He's not emoting incredibly, but he is playing a comic role straight, and this, too, works for me. (By the way, check out THAT'LL BE THE DAY, in which Ringo plays a down-and-out Holiday Camp musician. It is truly a serious performance. Also, consider the part in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT with Ringo walking by the river, throwing sticks and kicking stones. He can act when he wants to.) The other actors deliver the archaic dialogue in almost classical style. Again, there is a melancholy to all of this. It is nowhere near as self-conscious as most deliberately extreme movies. The reason for this is that the director, Freddie Francis, born in 1917, had been directing for many years and had a lot of experience. There are some really interesting camera angles. The plot is nuts, but the filming is almost hallucinatory. At one point one of the mad doctors is in his office and the camera backs up to show a portrait in oils, in a gilded frame, of what appears to be the Frankenstein monster in a three-piece suit. There's a close-up of it a minute later and it resembles the Kaiser. I had a grainy copy of this movie and am wondering if the painting was one of these optical-illusion things people used to put on their walls (such as the one where, at first glance, you see people sitting at a table with candles and another look reveals a giant skull) or if the grainy quality of the DVD made me see it wrong. Even if I was wrong about it being the Frankenstein monster, I am amused at the fact that a picture of the Kaiser is on the scientist's wall in a movie taking place in 1974. (And Frankie DOES appear later on.) Yes, it's sub-par. But there's a certain genius in it nonetheless. And the music is sweet.

dvan1959 I purchased a copy of the soundtrack in high school and wore it out! I did not get to see this movie when it came out. 31 years later I found a bootleg copy on ebay. Great music, but an awful movie. The story has very little dialog and never goes anywhere. Such a waist of great musical talent. Harry Nilsson's who is one of the forgotten song writers of the seventies acting is so bad that he makes Ringo Starr look good. The song daybreak is a different mix than the album and the camera is so frame so close that you almost don't see Keith Moon playing drums. Freddie Francis who directed this movie is a great cinematographer (The French Lieutenants Women) and camera man (Moby Dick 1956) but should have skip this film project. Fine the soundtrack and forget this movie!

schadenfreude714 Yes, this is indeed a movie, albeit one very difficult to get your hands on--try the internet, it was never officially released on video. This is basically a plot less showcase for the musical genius that was Harry Nilsson. He plays the son of Count Dracula--named Count Downe an]--who wants to be mortal so he can marry this woman he's in love with. Or something like that. Ringo Starr looks after Count Downe as Merlin the Magician--with pasty makeup and a fright-wig beard--for some reason, but it really doesn't matter. In fact, there are no full-fledged musical numbers--just Count Downe appearing on-stage at some club and performing--with the exception of his Pete Hamm cover "Without You," in a particularly sappy scene.It also features strange attempts at comedy. Count Downe's butler uses the word "contretemps" in conversation, then the word appears at the bottom of the screen with a question mark beside it. And the fact that at the end of the credits, Merlin appears in an animated sun and shrugs in an oh-so Ringo way, just proves that--despite its many schlocky tendencies--it is worth a look, if it's not too much trouble.

dbborroughs I don't think this film was ever really released widely. It has something to do with Dracula taking over as the head of all the monsters or something, but I'm not sure because its not very good, and I lost interest in anything that was going on.A good deal of this film is taken over by musical numbers. At the drop of a hat Harry Nilsson will burst in to song, which isn't a bad thing since the music is quite good. The problem is that the rest of the movie is a complete mess. This is more akin to Paul McCartney's vanity projects like Give My Regards to Broad Street, where there's a minimal plot and lots of songs, than anything you could call a real movie. It's a lot of ideas that don't really add up to much.I can't really suggest anyone actually watch this movie because its a bit of a bore. I give it 4 out of 10 because of the music and the curiosity value, but there always is the album and then again there are some movies best left unseen.