The plot is simple; four travelers are abandoned by their coach driver near an old castle. Mysteriously, another horse-drawn buggy arrives with no rider. Of course, they decide to take it and move on but the horses are set on taking them to the castle, which I thought was pretty cool. When they arrive, they find they were expected, a table set for four. Out comes Klove, the creepy caretaker, who informs them that the deceased owner's wish was that the castle stay open for travelers. They decide to take advantage of this
and the story takes horrific turns from there. The resurrection of Dracula was a very good scene and the ending was a rather original twist on the vampire mythos but I enjoyed it just because of that. This was the first film in which I had seen the great Christopher Lee play the role of Dracula and everybody was right; he's perfect as the bloodsucker
and he doesn't even utter a word in this one. His tall build, strong face, and piercing eyes are more than enough to inspire his character. Andrew Keir as Father Sandor, a Van Helsing type role, was also of note. All in all, this Hammer production mixes in a bit of blood, some terror, and a whole lot of classic atmosphere to make for one classy, enjoyable horror flick.
Add a Review
-
adamscastlevania218 September 2014(76%) A brilliant sequel and a true horror classic that every horror fan should watch at least once. The first unlucky victims murder is really quite strong and brutal, and when one takes into account the 1966 release date it must have really shocked a lot of people back in the day. A great film with top direction and fantastic set design, only let down by the lack of Peter Cushing and the poor decision not to give any lines at all to Christopher Lee, I kind of see what they were going for, but Lee should have been treated a lot better and given something to say. Dracula spoke a lot in the book so there is little reason to mute him here, still a solid movie though and worthy of anyone's time.
-
The_Void23 February 2005Though not quite up to the standard of Hammer's first major success, 'Horror of Dracula', this follow up still represents another feather in the great studio's already feather filled cap. Returning from the first film are director Terence Fisher and, of course, Christopher Lee as the Count. Unfortunately, Peter Cushing doesn't recoup his role as the vampire hunter, Van Helsing and the film suffers a loss because of that; but it works despite that fact and although Cushing would no doubt have added to the film, it obviously doesn't need him to succeed. As Hammer are famous for playing with existing stories, and as they've already covered the original story; this one is a completely new version of Dracula. The plot follows four British tourists that end up in Dracula's castle and, as you can imagine, end up becoming dinner for everyone's favourite bloodsucker. Not Hammer's best storyline, I'm sure you'll agree, but as it's done with all the panache and style that we've come to love from Hammer, so they don't really need to set the world of plotting on fire to deliver a damn fine horror movie.
Christopher Lee is a great actor. He doesn't bring quite the same greatness to the role of Dracula that Bela Lugosi did before him, but if there was any actor to take the reins, Lee is definitely the one that I want. However, the problem with Lee's performance in this movie is that he doesn't get a lot of screen time, and considering he's the top billed star; I felt a little ripped off at him not being in it all that much. Every scene with him in it is a delight, however, and it's just a shame that there isn't all that many of them. The four actors playing the British tourists mostly carry the film, and although they aren't bad; none of them have anything on Christopher Lee. Terence Fisher's direction is adequate as usual, and he does a good job at creating the right sort of atmosphere and tension. There isn't a great deal of blood in the story, but it doesn't matter as that's not the point of the film, and the Hammer clichés that have gained them so many fans figure to an extent that you wont even notice the lack of blood and guts. This isn't the best Dracula film ever made, or even the best Dracula film that Hammer made; but it's a solid one and fans of Dracula and Hammer will no doubt find lots to like. -
Bucs19606 November 2003There is a cult in this world that are die-hard fans of Hammer films and "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" is another one to whet your appetite. Hammer Studios made their reputation in the horror film genre and all the films have a cetain look that is their trademark. The sets are rather lavish, it always seems to be winter and Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing are lurking around somewhere.
This film, missing Mr. Cushing, is probably one of the best of the "series". The charismatic Mr. Lee, however, does not utter a word and has fairly limited screen time which may dismay some fans. But he is still menacing and still biting necks with abandon. The story centers more around the 4 travelers and the priest (very well played by Andrew Keir). As usual, the innocents in the film stay at a castle which they have been warned to avoid by half the population of Transylvania. And then they pay the price. One scene worth mentioning, which is a little more gory than most in films of the 1960's is the discovery of Charles Tingwell, hanging upside down like a side of beef in the basement. You might jump at little at that point. But generally the film pretty much sticks to the Hammer formula.
So, if you are a Hammer fan, this one's for you. If you are not a Hammer fan, don't think for a moment that the story resembles Bram Stokers "Dracula"........well, maybe the fly eating Thorley Walters, modeled on the Renfield character from the book. Howevwer, it is a satisfying entry in the Hammer oeuvre and worth a watch. -
JoeKarlosi9 September 2006After not playing Count Dracula for a lengthy period, Christopher Lee stuck in his fangs and blood-shot contact eye lenses a second time for this direct sequel to "Horror of Dracula," which had been released a whopping eight years prior. In the interim, Hammer Studios had gone ahead without Lee for their "Brides of Dracula" sequel, which I'd say was arguably their finest vampire film of all. But that movie didn't feature the undisputed King of Vampires, and so Dracula properly returns here with Lee right where he belongs, in his most enduring horror role.
Some rather likable actors (Francis Matthews, Barbara Shelley, and Suzan Farmer) play the latest group of innocents who somehow manage once more to stumble onto the grounds of an old castle (Dracula's this time) and they're met by a somber-looking servant who informs them that his master is dead. It soon pans out that these unwilling pawns are being marked to participate in the reviving and subsequent sustenance of the decomposed Count himself. It takes half the film's running time for Lee to emerge as Dracula, but once he does it's edge of the seat entertainment and worth waiting up for. The Count doesn't speak a word of dialogue in the film, but Lee the proud actor has always claimed that he would rather go the silent route than utter some of the words he had been instructed to say.
As happens throughout the Hammer Dracula series, some elements of Bram Stoker's original novel crop up here. Thorley Walters appears as a fly-loving, Renfield-like loyalist to the master vampire, and there's also an inspired scene where Dracula cuts his own chest with his fingernail to entice a pretty victim to drink his blood. These tributes are welcome. And I can't leave out the intense Andrew Keir, who is excellent in the part of a strong-willed monk who scoffs at his superstitious parishioners but later must be the one to instruct the young hero on how to do battle with the Undead. *** out of **** -
You know the song and dance: people are warned not to go up to that darn castle! British travelers are going through the countryside, and they hear about this castle up on a hill. They're told not to go there - why, exactly, maybe it's not entirely clear as "His" name is not invoked. But, alas, they do go there, and after being welcomed in an eerie way (everything at the table is all set up for them, and they're served by a sorta creepy butler), they stick around. Needless to say, after a ritual that involves a LOT of blood from a man hung upside down, Dracula rises from his grave - or, I should say reforms out of like the dirt and blood and ash and whatnot. Take it away, Christopher Lee, with your seductive-monstrous self!
Hammer horror here, and it's fun, if not really that great. But it was the first sequel to Horror of Dracula, the film that first brought Lee to Hammer's world of Stoker, and made him iconic for millions across the world. This time he doesn't have a word of dialog - whether this was by design of the script or Lee being a (rightful) primadonna and ordering cuts, who can say, legend-fact-print-legend sort of thing - but no matter. He's still creepy and in his pacing of taking his time to reach his victims terrifying (geuinely so, there's no cheese here, not a shred). And in his way he's also kind of seductive... yes, even with those red eyes.
The rest of the movie around Lee and his assistant is alright. Barbara Shelly makes for a good female foil and is beautiful. And the sets and music are spot on. Perhaps it's worth noting that characterization for the humans isn't that strong, but then is it necessary? The beats are here - the crosses, the discount Van Helsing who knows all and leads the hunt against the Prince of Darkness - and it's hard to feel much suspense in the climax when you know how it's going to go down. But it's still classy filmmaking from Terence Fisher, and it's refreshing to see a horror movie that takes its time, gives characters and sets room to breathe in shots, and you'll want to keep watching for when the Count appears.
The parts are much greater than the whole... but what bloody parts! -
davoshannon22 July 2010Watching it again as I write this, I'm reminded of the numbers of us that flocked to see this and other Hammer offerings in the '60's. It was a preferred film type then, and until Roger Corman introduced psychedelia to the genre it was all comfortably predictable.
Remember, we had all heard of Aleister Crowley (a real satanist of recent times, supposedly), and were all reading Denis Wheatley (The Devil Rides Out, etc). So Hammer obliged and provided the visuals, with surprisingly lush colour and good enough effects.
The "chaps" were all exemplary gentlemen, and it's difficult to imagine how you can traipse around deepest Romania/Transylvania in broken-down horse drawn carriages and keep the crease in trousers / not get plastered in mud. Someone else mentioned that Hammer's "vampire" women always looked better than the real thing, but I have to disagree - the older woman of the foursome group looks extremely good to me (when not stressed and screaming).
It's all good fun, and entertainment for the masses - who responded favourably.
The genre has been revamped time and time again, since Nosferatu, and for the collector this one would have to be in it for completion. Add "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and "Shadow of the Vampire" to the already mentioned Nosferatu and you'd have the Transylvania style covered.
Mind you it's metamorphosed again with the likes of Twilight, with another cult following. Didn't have CGI back in the '60's!. -
lost-in-limbo22 June 2007Their coach driver abandons two upper-class English couples that are holidaying, but they are later picked up by a driver-less coach and taken to Dracula's castle. Were they encountered his servant Klove, who makes them at home. Later that night one of the guests become curious, and follows Klove down to the basement. Where he kills him and uses his blood to revive his master. One couple manages to escape, but Dracula wants his prey and he goes about trying to get her back, but a local priest aids the young couple.
Terence Fisher returns as director for the second sequel, after heading up the early Hammer Dracula outings, "Horror of Dracula (1958) and "Brides of Dracula (1960)". It's another classy display with inventive flushes and sufficient performances, but it's probably the most leisured and plodding of the series that I've seen. After Christopher Lee didn't appear in Brides, he returned to the role and gave (literally) a snarling performance that relied on his frosty presence and psychical dominance of primal instinct. He had no dialogue at all. A robust Andrew Keir is particularly good in his minor part. However it's a creepy turn by Philip Latham as Dracula's servant, that's the best of the lot. Barbara Shelley and Susan Farmer make for exceptional Hammer beauties, and Francis Matthews makes for a likable, solid heroine. Charles Tingwell also appears. The lingering atmosphere is effectively painted from the beautiful to ominous locations. Suspense is adequately staged, as there are few very memorable set pieces (like Dracula's resurrection and finally his downfall) and ghastly jolts. A playfully chilling tenor fills James Bernard's score and scope-like photography by Michael Reed is always on the spot. The story has a run-of-the-mill feel to it, but its slow building structure and atmospheric edge cooks up a mysterious and eerie vibe that works for its superstitious underlining.
An admirably entertaining Hammer Dracula picture. -
This is a highly entertaining film in the Hammer Dracula series, which showcases many of the Hammer hallmarks: clever script, great sets, good actors who bring life to their roles, excellent cinematography and editing, great music and much more. It takes one of the oldest horror movie clichés,possibly dramatized for the first time in James Whale's The Old Dark House ( 1932), of the stranded travelers who must take shelter for the night in a spooky old house/castle and are subjected to strange and terrifying experiences, and makes it seem fresh and exciting. The two English brothers are delightfully played by Charles Tingwell as Alan, with a sort of endearing stuffiness, and Francis Matthews as Charles, who in both appearance and voice is reminiscent of the young Cary Grant, with a gentlemanly demeanor and a hint of boyish mischievousness. The lovely Suzan Farmer is the wife of Charles, while Barbara Shelley virtually steals the show as the repressed Helen, who is rigid and controlling and who undergoes an astonishing transformation. SPOILERS AHEAD: the four English travelers have been warned by a gruff but fatherly monk not to go anywhere near a castle, which oddly enough is not shown or mentioned on their map. When their coachman refuses to take them any farther, they are surprised to find themselves suddenly taken to the castle by a mysterious coach with horses but no driver, that suddenly arrives out of nowhere. The tension builds nicely, mixed with a low key humor, as the four travelers find the table set for four people, and their suitcases laid out in luxurious bedrooms upstairs. This puzzling state of affairs is brought to a startling climax when a very polite, but quietly menacing butler appears to welcome them to dinner, on the hospitality of his former master...the late Count Dracula. Things proceed to get more interesting from this point on, and I don't want to reveal too much for anyone who hasn't seen this very fun movie. Let's just say that when the proper and joyless Helen meets her host, the very much alive Count Dracula, she changes from a straitlaced Victorian wife to a sensuous vampire so completely as to be all but unrecognizable as her former self. If Barbara Shelley had done nothing else, she would be remembered for this great role. The movie has action, humor, suspense and enough atmosphere for a dozen films. Christopher Lee is oddly silent as the Count, but comes to suggest a powerful figure of evil who doesn't have to rely on speech. His fight with Francis Matthews, in which he grabs Matthews' sword and snaps it like a pencil, is the best scene of its kind since the first Fisher Horror of Dracula in 1958. This is a movie that should be seen by any Hammer fans and lovers of vampire stories in general.
-
This 1966 movie was, you might say,an official sequel to Terence Fisher's 1958 "Dracula", opening as it does with the ending of the earlier film and there are some who think it's the superior picture. In the interim, films had become just that little bit more explicit so that this time round Fisher could up the ante, at least in terms of violence, if not sex.
Peter Cushing's Van Helsing was no longer on hand, being replaced by Andrew Keir's somewhat gruff priest but Hammer had found a new Queen of Horror in Barbara Shelley and she's excellent as the latest addition to the count's harem. The difference here is that this time Dracula never speaks which, in a way, makes him all the more terrifying; the real stuff of nightmares. As well as Lee, Shelley and Keir there is a good supporting cast including Francis Matthews, Charles Tingwell, Thorley Walters and a suitably menacing Philip Latham as Dracula's faithful manservant. -
moonspinner551 October 2010Screenwriter Jimmy Sangster (using the pseudonym John Sansom) lends his expert hand to this colorful, entertaining bloodsucker-revival from Hammer Films, featuring the inimitable Christopher Lee as the wordless, hypnotic Count Dracula. Weary travelers in Transylvania find themselves in the Count's castle, where their blood is used by the caretaker to revive the marauding vampire. Nothing new, yet it certainly holds the attention. Lee was the perfect Bela Lugosi substitute for the 'modern age', commanding attention simply on his lanky presence alone. The blood is bright red, the wenches are fearful and bosomy, and there's a neat scene where a female victim calls to a nubile friend from outside her bedroom window. Director Terence Fisher works in a quick, uncluttered and non-fancy manner. ** from ****
-
willowyoung17 December 2001marvelous edition to the hammer dracula franchise, being the second in the series, you may think as with most follow up`s this is not as strong as the first ,but it is ,it work`s because of a heady mix of atmosphere ,coupled with a decent script,and an excellent cast chris lee is as ever menacing ,andrew keir is a superb van helsing wannabe,who is supported by who i think is one of hammer`s unsung heroes francis matthews ,and the lovely ladies barbara shelley ,and susan farmer are perfect as the innocent`s abroad ,this is a good hour and a half`s entertainment,it`s just a pity that hammer milked their dracula series to the hilt because sadly ,this is when it peaked.
-
Hey_Sweden27 October 2013The first direct sequel to the studios' "Dracula" (after the Dracula-less sequel "The Brides of Dracula"), this is standard stuff for them, but typically well done. Director Terence Fisher is in fine form as always, the look of the film is perfect, James Bernards' score is thunderous and insistent, the ladies (Barbara Shelley and Suzan Farmer) are ravishing, and Sir Christopher Lee is a force of nature as the bad Count. His screen time is quite limited, but effective. He has no dialogue here - he's a feral beast who basically just hisses. Van Helsing is not to be seen here, but his stand-in, a tough, knowledgeable, and authoritative monk named Father Sandor (Andrew Keir) more than makes up for that.
The focus is on a quartet of vacationers made up of two couples: Charles (Francis Matthews) & Diana (Ms. Farmer) and Alan (Charles 'Bud' Tingwell) & Helen (Ms. Shelley). They're stranded in the wilderness by a frightened coachman who dares not venture too close to Draculas' castle. A horse and carriage pick them up and bring them to the house, where a faithful servant, Klove (a creepy Philip Latham) shows them some hospitality. Charles and Alan don't really question things (even though they should), but Helen is scared. And rightfully so. That night, Klove puts into motion the means of resurrecting Dracula from the dead. Two of the quartet must then rely on the services of Father Sandor in dispatching Dracula.
"Dracula: Prince of Darkness" moves forward very well and delivers a respectable amount of chills and thrills. The atmosphere is potent, in the Hammer tradition, and the story leads to a fairly action-packed climax and a novel means of "killing" Dracula, which Hammer would do with each entry in their series. The very engaging cast also includes delightful Thorley Walters as Renfield-like, easily manipulated character Ludwig. This sequel is unique for Hammers' Dracula franchise for its 2.35:1 aspect ratio; the excellent widescreen cinematography is courtesy of Michael Reed. The highlight has to be the commanding performance by Keir, who proves to be just as worthy a Dracula opponent as Peter Cushings' Van Helsing is.
Followed by "Dracula Has Risen from the Grave".
Seven out of 10. -
kosmasp4 May 2012And he doesn't age well. At least not in this movie. Still through all it's ridiculousness, this kinda works and is sort of appealing. Despite very flawed characters, that any modern movie would crucify on sight (though they do work as a blueprint obviously), despite some very "wooden" acting and hammy dialogue (puns intended), this still is very fun to watch though.
If you're a fan of the movie, I hope I did not insult you. And of course it's normal to have nostalgic feelings about this (I kinda like this too), but you have to admit, that someone who would watch this nowadays (or even in the future?) will not be able to be as entertained as the folks back then were. -
'Dracula: Prince Of Darkness' isn't technically the sequel to Hammer's 'Dracula' (a.k.a. 'Horror Of Dracula'), 'The Brides Of Dracula' is, but considering Dracula didn't even appear in the latter, this in my opinion is the REAL sequel. I actually enjoyed it a little bit more than 'Dracula' and it's one of the very best entries in the whole series, if not THE best. Dracula doesn't put in an appearance until about half way through the movie, but he's worth waiting for. Christopher Lee gives his most memorable performance as Dracula, which incidentally has no dialogue whatsoever. It's a great piece of acting, and Lee is an extremely underrated performer. Apart from Christopher Lee the rest of the cast is also first rate. Andrew "Professor Quatermass" Keir almost steals the movie as the unconventional Father Sandor, and the four English travellers who find themselves the guests of Dracula are Barbara Shelley, Francis Matthews, Suzan Farmer and veteran Aussie actor Bud Tingwell. All but the latter are familiar faces to Hammer fans. Shelley co-starred with Keir in the excellent 'Quatermass and the Pit" and she, Matthews and Farmer appeared with Christopher Lee in the wonderful 'Rasputin: The Mad Monk' released the same year as this movie. Pop culture obsessives will also remember that Francis Matthews voiced Captain Scarlet in the cult Gerry and Sylvia Anderson puppet show 'Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons' (a show that Bud Tingwell was also involved with). 'Dracula: Prince Of Darkness' is yet another wonderfully entertaining horror movie from Hammer studios. I suggest watching 'Dracula' and then following directly with 'Dracula: Prince Of Darkness' for a fantastic vampire double bill that is pretty hard to beat! Long live Christopher Lee!
-
BrentCarleton15 February 2007Although this film holds a nostalgic pull for this particular viewer, (having seen it in its original stateside release at a Drive-In)an honest assessment today compels us to admit that the film is a study of a studio in decline.
True, the film is not without its assets, not the least of which is the veteran cast, with the lovely and always dramatically compelling Barbara Shelley pretty much walking off with the picture. Suzan Farmer, as always, is charming, and very easy on the eyes.
However, Bernard Robinson's art direction, (though adequate) doesn't begin to approach his earlier work, (particulary in "Brides of Dracula," "The Man Who Could Cheat Death," and "The Kiss of the Vampire"--and Robinson's genius is of a type that the work 'adequate' sits uncomfortably upon). Curiously, Mr. Robinson was back at the top of his game months later when he designed the plushy, "Plague of the Zombies."
The cinematography is compromised by grainy film stock, poor color, (as noted by film historian Leslie Halliwell), often rushed lighting, and a cumbersome and unnecessary use of wide screen. Terence Fisher filmographer, Wheeler Dixon, has noted the deficiencies in Michael Reeds's lensing on this project. In any case Mr. Reed nowhere equals the beautiful compositions he had managed on "The Gorgon," all of which makes the absence of Jack Asher particularly evident.
That the aforesaid technical credentials are lacking bears ample testament to the studio's drastic mid 60's cost cutting strategies, and the artistically regrettable, but imminent move away from Bray studios.
Moreover, the commercial objectives are baldly evinced here--the film screams "Formula."
Despite these shortcomings, and since this film was one of the last shot at Bray, it does bear compensatory traces of former glories. Thus we fully appreciate the hapless quartet's posthumous toast to Count Dracula, whilst the armorial flags above them billow in a ghostly breeze and the underscoring throbs unnervingly.
And Miss Shelley, as a vampiress, descending the staircase in a diaphanous gown goes a far way on the asset side of the ledger.
Mr. Lee for his part, does his usual hissing and cape waving. Too much is made of his lack of dialogue here. After all he has only a few lines at the beginning of "Horror of Dracula," and a few lines in this film's successor, "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave." So why on earth people feel the absence of such scanty phrases damages this film, who can say?
This picture would have been far better had it been done five years earlier. That said, it is a masterpiece compared to the dreck the eviscerated Hammer would be foisting on the public just five years later. -
Wuchakk23 March 2014RELEASED IN 1966 and directed by Terence Fisher, "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" focuses on two English couples circa 1900 traveling the mysterious forests of Eastern Europe who are warned to stay away from a particular area that has an ominous castle. Fools that they are, they end up spending the night and the sinister Count is resurrected.
Hammer did nine Dracula films from 1958 to 1974:
Horror of Dracula (1958); The Brides of Dracula (1960); Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966); Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968); Taste the Blood of Dracula (1969); Scars of Dracula (1970); Dracula AD 1972 (1972); The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973); and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires (1974). Christopher played the Count in every one of these except "The Brides of Dracula" and "The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires." As such, "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" was Lee's return to the role after a long eight year absence.
Most Hammer fans praise the first film in the series from 1958, which was Lee's first gig as Dracula, and it is a solid entry with the typical Hammer highlights, like lush Gothic ambiance, bright colors, Lee & Cushing and bodacious women, not to mention Lee's diabolical interpretation of the Count and one of the most stunning horror scores by James Bernard. But the truncated story wasn't completely satisfactory and there were too many 50's limitations IMHO.
I prefer this sequel as it features all the Hammer hallmarks listed above, except Cushing. Some might complain about the slow first half, but I like the way the film takes its time and concentrates on the two couples, the spooky ambiance, and the build-up of suspense. Klove (Philip Latham) is a particularly creepy character with his courteous pretense. The way he resurrects the Count is a ghastly highlight. Interestingly, Lee doesn't have all that much screen time and not one line of dialogue, so he's basically a vampire bogeyman here. But the lush Gothic atmosphere is potent and the cast shines, especially Barbara Shelley as the doomed wife of a so-"cultured"-he's-stupid husband (Charles Tingwell). And Andrew Keir as Dracula's worthy antagonist, Father Sandor, a most formidable monk.
I also appreciated the elaboration on vampire lore by Sandor (Keir). One reviewer scoffed at the idea that the undead have to be willingly allowed into a person's abode, but this fits the parallel of vampires to evil itself, which first affects a person's mindset (ideology) and THEN their behavior or lifestyle. In short, evil cannot overtake a person unless s/he willingly allows it.
THE FILM RUNS 90 minutes and was shot in Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, England, (with, perhaps, some establishing shots from Romania, e.g. the mountains). WRITERS: Jimmy Sangster and Anthony Hinds. ADDITIONAL CAST: Francis Matthews & Suzan Farmer play the other couple.
GRADE: B -
lordguano23 March 2001Chris Lee makes his second appearance as Count Dracula in this
sequel to Hammer's original Dracula (USA title: Horror of Dracula)
after an 8 year absence from the role. This is actually the 3rd film
in the series since, while Dracula himself does not appear in
1960's Brides of Dracula, Peter Cushing reprises his role as the
vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing in that film. Too bad Cushing is
not on hand for this outing. While not completely bad, this movie
suffers from Hammer's wrong headed decision that we should
care more about the characters who are to be victimized by the
Count than we do about the Count himself. Therefore, it is quite
some time into the movie before Dracula makes his first
appearance, while we are subjected to spending quality time with
4 completely dull English travelers who unwittingly make their way
to Castle Dracula. Once Lee does enter the picture, he basically
has to make do with a mute, almost cameo role. After all this time,
wouldn't the producers of this movie have thought that audiences
would be starving for healthier doses of Lee's inimitable portrait of
the King of Vampires? This annoyance is even more frustrating on
commercial TV, where commercials pad out the opening sequences, delaying Dracula's appearance even more painfully. Unfortunately, these same mistakes are made in this entry's
immediate sequel, Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (although
Lee does at least have a few meager -- and poorly written -- lines
in that film and gets a bit more screen time). It wouldn't be until the
5th film in the series, Taste The Blood Of Dracula, that Hammer
would produce a complex and literate film worthy of Lee and the
Count. This isn't to say that either Prince of Darkness nor Risen
From the Grave do not have their share of effective moments. In
this film, the most effective moments include the incredible
resurrection sequence wherein the Count's faithful man-servant
strings up a victim over the coffin containing Dracula's ashy
remains and proceeds to slice open his stomach so that the blood
mixes with the ashes and revives the Count. I love the detail here
of seeing Dracula's naked arm popping up over the rim of the
crypt... similar sequences in later films would assume that the
Count would be resurrected in full costume. Another particularly
intense sequence involves the staking of one of Dracula's vampire
brides by a local priest. Here Barbara Shelley's performance as
the tormented creature is incredibly effective. All in all, still a fairly enjoyable film for fans of this genre (and
this Hammer series in particular). My advice would still be to stick
with the original film and the superior sequels, Brides of Dracula
and Taste the Blood of Dracula. And just for controversy's sake, I
would also recommend the slapdash, but entertainingly manic
Scars of Dracula, which breaks from the continuity of the original
series, but returns Dracula to the role of mysteriously sinister host
bidding welcome to unwary guests at his castle. -
Lejink26 February 2009Lurid, entertaining but hardly shocking mid 60's Hammer horror production, probably most noteworthy for the fact that the title character played by the normally stentorian-voiced Christopher Lee says nary a word throughout, reputedly because he was so dis-enamoured of his allotted dialogue. While there are some plus features to the movie, this central flaw, which leaves a red-eyed Lee to ham it up like a refugee from a silent-movie throws the movie too far off-kilter for it to really recover.
Those plus features I mentioned would include the lush, airy location filming, ditto the castle interiors, in fact the cinematography on the whole is great on the eye, with blood-red the naturally dominant colour in the director's palette. The story pits the usual stereotypes and archetypes for our delectation, from holier than thou God-fearing priests, to a would-be (but in reality, not very) creepy butler attending on Lee, the timid superstitious townsfolk who watch and cower as usual and of course four upper class English twits, the perennial innocents abroad, who commit every clichéd horror-film action you can think of. These include, the obligatory ignoring of the warnings by stern priest Andrew Keir's about avoiding ol' Drac's castle, then disregarding one of their number's dire premonitions of death and destruction, wandering around the castle at night unaccompanied and of course ending up with stiff-upper-lip Francis Matthews, pre-Paul Temple, going back to the castle for the climactic duel with Lee.
I quite enjoyed the first hour, particularly the shenanigans in the castle, with a reasonable build up of tension, assisted by effective background music and sound effects but felt the last half-hour, up until just before the not-quite-redeeming conclusion on the ice, appeared grafted on, particularly the utilisation of a daffy old eccentric, a relapsed disciple of Dracula, who turns out to fully engage the trust of Matthew's fiancée when she hardly knows him and then is able to overpower with one blow a pretty virile looking priest. And yet there are one or two images that linger in the memory (just) beyond the end-titles, notably the transfiguration return of Dracula in the castle dungeon, sparked by the dripping blood of the spit-roasted corpse of Matthew's slain brother and also Lee's deathly gaze from under the ice which has claimed him to the deep (and no, I didn't know running water was fatal to vampires either).
It doesn't feel as if this was a particularly long shoot with an attendant unnecessary briskness of manner prevalent - you never feel for a minute that the actors ever really inhabit their parts, improbable as they are. Keir is probably the best of them though his Scottish Presbyterian accent does seem out of place in the likes of Carlsbad! Perhaps the film's most glaring fault is the re-run as a sort of prologue, of the conclusion of its predecessor "Dracula" (1958) with the memorable climax between Lee and the great Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. The remainder of this film lacks a scene as effective as this and is definitely the poorer for the latter actor's absence. Not, in conclusion then, the best of Hammer's horror recreations, but like an adult's ride on the ghost train, a pleasant enough journey, without ever getting close to actually frightening you out of your seat. -
TEXICAN-219 September 1999Christopher Lee returns in the role of Dracula. This movie was made a decade after his first appearance, and was a welcomed event. The movie was double billed with PLAGUE OF THE ZOMBIES and I saw them both at a drive in theater when they were first released (if you don't remember drive in theaters, I feel sorry for you). Overall the story was logical, and the pacing was excellent by director Terence Fisher. There were some gafs and holes in the plot (I've pointed them out if you care to read them), but, even so, this is still one of the best in the Dracula series. With all due respect to Bela Lugosi, John Carradine, and all the other performers of the role, Lee is, in my opinion, the best and most menacing of them all.
-
hitchcockthelegend11 October 2010Out of Hammer Studios, Dracula: Prince Of Darkness is directed by Terence Fisher, the screenplay is written by Jimmy Sangster from an Anthony Hinds story. It stars Christopher Lee, Barbara Shelley, Andrew Keir, Francis Matthews, Charles Tingwell, Thorley Walters & Philip Latham. It's photographed by Michael Reed in Techniscope and musically scored by James Bernard.
Dracula: Prince Of Darkness is the sequel to Hammer Film's 1958 Horror Of Dracula. The film sees Lee return as the Vampire Count (he was absent for the 1960 Brides Of Dracula). It begins with the finale to the 1958 film (nicely shot as a misty mirror effect) and plot then follows how two travelling British couples end up at dusty old Karlsbad Castle and become privy to the rise of the fanged tooth one. Blood and peril of course will follow.
It's arguable since in the Hammer Horror pantheon Scars Of Dracula (1970) does have some supporters, but Prince Of Darkness is probably the last great Hammer Dracula film. Though the story is slight, and Drac's time on screen is not substantial; and he takes a long time to appear too, it is often exciting, not lacking in imagination in bringing the previously slain Count back, and technically it's very smart with its widescreen photography showcasing the marvellous sets. Traditionally it's on the money for a Vampire based movie, the local inn, the driver-less coach, the dinner sequence, shifty manservant and of course the ways and means of fending off and killing a Vampire (crosses, stakes thru hearts, running water etc). It also boast some memorable sequences, not least the sacrificial gory one used to bring Drac back to life. The cast work well to make it all work, with Keir and the always menacing Lee particularly standing out. While Fisher, a top pro, builds characters and atmosphere nicely for the first half, and then unfolds a Gothic thriller for the second half.
It has its flaws and dumb moments of course, like for the finale you have to wonder why Dracula doesn't just scale the castle wall to escape his lurking death situation? And there's some sagging during the monastery get together that feels like padding the running time out. But allowing for some minor irritants is not hard to do because it's still a fine Hammer Horror movie, one that comes just before the studio would start descending downwards in both quality and ideas on the horror front. With that, Dracula: Prince Of Darkness is a movie to savour two fold. 7.5/10 -
... And considering I only saw it two days ago this might be a sign that Dracula PRINCE OF DARKNESS is a very forgettable movie The story starts with a fairly lengthy recap from the first Hammer Dracula movie - Bad mistake since you might be expecting Peter Cushing to turn up in the story . He doesn't and the film suffers from this . What does happen is something we see in nearly every other Hammer horror movie of having a bunch of tourists arrive at their destination via a coach driven by a surly coach driver who throws some suitcases on the ground with the story introducing characters ( And yes one of them is a man of God ) saying things like " strangers ? We don't get strangers here " and " Stay away from that castle , there's danger after dark " .
You get the picture ? It might have seemed fairly fresh when it was released in 1966 but watching it many years after the Hammer studio had gone bust you do feel that familiarity breeds contempt and it was for this reason the studio went out of business in the mid 1970s . I should perhaps be fair and point out that this movie isn't all that bad but suffers from a lack of something that THE REPTILE or VAMPIRE CIRCUS or several other Hammer horror movies suffer from and that is trying to do something a little bit different with a formulaic plot -
Horror of Dracula will always be my favourite of the Hammer Dracula series, but Dracula: Prince of Darkness is still very good and one of the best in the series.
There are a couple of imperfections, with Dracula: Prince of Darkness' main flaw being the rather too-long a time it takes to set up, with some of the first thirty minutes being a little draggy. The dialogue is also rather ham-fisted and over-silly, which was a bit of a shock to me seeing as the script was penned by Jimmy Sangster, whose scripts for Hammer are usually quite intelligent and nuanced. The acting is very solid on the whole, but Francis Matthews is somewhat stiff and pallid as the hero, and his chemistry with Suzan Farmer, who with her charming sympathetic presence actually acquits herself pretty well, is a little on the dull side.
Dracula: Prince of Darkness looks great though. It's very beautifully shot and has a wonderfully sumptuous Gothic atmosphere throughout. The handsome sets and period detail are very evocative, and the colours are strikingly atmospheric. James Bernard's music score is very effective, it isn't too complicated but what it is is very elegant in orchestration and effortlessly creates chills without ever being too obvious. Dracula: Prince of Darkness may get off to a slow start, but the story is mostly entertaining and engrossing. Sure it is not unlike anything we have seen already, but that didn't matter, because a vast majority of the film is brilliantly suspenseful and has a genuine sense of dread and creepy atmosphere, the chills and scares pitched beautifully. There are also three unforgettable scenes, the still shocking(and quite gruesome) Dracula resurrection, Helen's pretty nerve-shredding demise and the exciting climax on the ice.
Regarding the acting, it's solid on the whole apart from Matthews. The sadly late legendary Christopher Lee, even without saying a word, still induces goose-bumps as Dracula, while a wonderfully gruff Andrew Keir is a worthy opponent for him(if not erasing memories of Peter Cushing, not that one should really be expecting that) and Barbara Shelley proves herself to be more than just a beautiful-looking scream queen, there's some nice sympathetic depth to her performance. Phillip Latham is very creepy as Klove and Thorley Walters' Ludwig sends shivers down the spine. Terence Fisher directs adeptly.
All in all, while not quite Hammer at their finest, even with its flaws, Dracula: Prince of Darkness is still one of the standouts of the Hammer Dracula series. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox -
This movie really is a mixed bag--with a really unusual plot on one hand but some really dopey elements as well. And, overall, it's one of the weaker Dracula films I have ever seen.
Dracula is back even though in the last Hammer version of Dracula, he was completely destroyed by sunlight. I can forgive this actually, as Universal Studios frequently brought back their monsters after they'd been destroyed! But the way they did it here was really unusual and violent. It seems that the old vampire's ashes had been collected by a dedicated evil servant and he kept them for a decade waiting for some dumbbells to wander into the castle. Well, a group of the world's STUPIDEST travelers show up even after being repeatedly warned to avoid the castle at all costs! The way they actually got to the castle by being stranded and then brought to the castle by a driver-less carriage but pretty novel, but again and again there were so many signs warning them to go back, but of course they didn't. Having characters THIS dumb is a bit of a problem--especially since they are so unbelievably dumb you actually root for them to die! And in a grisly scene, one of them is murdered and his blood is poured into the coffin with Drac's ashes and the old vampire is revived.
The rest of the film is just okay. While offering some chills here and there, the movie also offers some bizarre Dracula lore that I never heard before--such as "a vampire is unable to enter a room unless asked" (huh?!). And, in the end, the vampire naturally dies (only to come back in the sequel) but HOW he dies is odd and seemingly impossible--I have NEVER heard of killing a vampire THAT way! It was almost like the writers had never seen a vampire movie before and re-made the existing vampire legend from scratch in many places. And because of this, the film is watchable but also eminently skip-able. -
For years after he played Dracula in "Horror of Dracula", Christopher Lee refused to return in the role. Little did we realize he was doing us a favor. In between, Hammer made two superb vampire films, "Brides of Dracula" and "Kiss of The Vampire". Lee should have stayed home a little longer. "Dracula, Prince of Darkness", is a bomb of the first rank. The film crawls forward with two unappealing English couples "touring" the forests and mountains in the area near Dracula's castle. Suzan Farmer is languid and pristine in her role, generating no sex appeal and less acting ability. Francis Mathews is tedious as a "Cary Grant" sounding hero who does his best to put up with a wife and friends he has absolutely nothing in common with. As usual, Andrew Keir is insufferable as a loud and pompous self-important priest named Father Sandor. Sandor isn't afraid of Dracula, or anything else for that matter, so why should the film audience be concerned either? The script and plot are awful. In scene after scene, Dracula is made to look totally inept and a complete fool. In the dead of night, Mathews and Farmer, who don't know a thing about vampires, find themselves trapped by Dracula, his female disciple, and a loyal servant in the castle. Yet, they manage to escape in a sequence which is completely absurd. Nothing can save this movie from itself. Terence Fischer's direction is mediocre, Lee makes lots of faces but we've already learned early on he's no match for Andrew Keir as Father Sandor, who can't be bothered being afraid of anything, and who likes bullying people around ... including the vampires.