Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

ferbs54 Despite being a longtime fan of the British horror film, it was only recently that I learned of the existence of 1965's "Devils of Darkness," and now that I have seen it, I know why. This product of Pinewood Studios is a fairly undistinguished effort that just barely manages to entertain and is never even remotely chilling. In it, William Sylvester (who psychotronic-film fans will recall from such genre favorites as "Gorgo," "The Devil Doll" and "2001") runs afoul of a French vampire called Count Sinistre (born in 1588) and his immortal gypsy bride, Tania, while on holiday in Brittany. The filmmakers apparently felt that a vampire wasn't enough for this picture, so threw in a pack of devil worshippers as well, plus some voodoo trimming. Unfortunately, the resultant stew never quite comes together, and the fact that Hubert Noel as the Count is hardly a threatening presence only compounds the problem. A subplot that has him endeavoring to recover a missing talisman simply peters out by the film's end, and the picture's resolution is waaay too rushed and abrupt, I feel. On the plus side, Sylvester is as sturdy and dependable as ever, and the film's production values are fairly high. The picture contains a couple of strange British beatnik party sequences showcasing some subtly suggested marijuana consumption and lesbianism, and an energetic and atmospheric gypsy camp intro opens the film promisingly. Ultimately, however, "Devils of Darkness" turns out to be a rather tame, blah picture; not bad, but certainly nothing great. If you've seen all the horror films put out by Hammer and Amicus Studios, do by all means give it a try. This picture really is for British horror film completists only.

slayrrr666 "Devils of Darkness" is a semi-decent Gothic entry that has a couple flaws to it.**SPOILERS**Going out rock-climbing, Paul Baxter, (William Sylvester) and Madeline, (Diana Decker) find that the trip is about to be canceled by a neighboring gypsy ceremony. When an accidental death nearly puts an end to the ceremony, she becomes fearful of a curse from the gypsies, which is soon confirmed by a series of strange events happening around them. Getting evidence that a secret cult rather than the gypsies are involved with trying to prevent him from finding the truth, he goes out to investigate and sees that Count Sinistre, (Hubert Noel) is the head of the cult and is responsible for the actions going on. Learning of their intentions with her, he races to stop them from going through with their plans.The Good News: This here wasn't that bad. It's best elements from the it's Gothic undertones. This one, when it tries to, is really Gothic at times, most notably in the opening assaults on the gypsies. The sight of the bat forcing the coffin open, which slowly opens to reveal a hand emerging from the darkness in a long, drawn-out style as oblivious gypsies party away at a camp nearby. The later attack, where the bat attacks the fleeing members in a heavily wooded area is a marvelous Gothic sequence. The catacomb hideout is fantastic, with long, dark hallways, plenty of twists and turns and the fact that it needs candle-lights to illuminate them allows for some creepy atmosphere. The scenes of the cult at the end are it's best, since there's plenty of cheesy fun to be had from these scenes. The chants, the sacrificial ceremony and the rituals that come into play are purely fun and really entertaining, and there's even some rather fun moments to be had throughout, including the preparations for the ceremony and the fight to get free, which ends on it's lone moment of violence but remains effective nonetheless. These points offer up the film's good points.The Bad News: There isn't a whole lot wrong with it. The film's main factor against it is that it's just deadly boring. It starts off great with the awakening in the coffin followed by the gypsy attack, but all that occurs from there until the end is absolutely nothing of interest. The film decides to have absolutely everything talked out, and that leads to a never-ending series of scenes where he converses with absolutely everybody about what's going on, and it leads to deadly boredom for most of these scenes. These are mostly taken out of the unending scenes of conversing with the police. It's obvious these are merely time-wasters in the plot sense, being merely answers to keep the protagonist away from the truth. That also severely limits the action as well, making it seem even duller by comparison. The fact that this one also features a vampire that rarely gets to do any sort of vampiric activities is another marginal factor. The vampire comes out here and there but on the whole doesn't do a whole lot to justify the inclusion, as the powers demonstrated seem more suited to a black magic follower over a vampire. These, though, are what really keep the film down.The Final Verdict: A somewhat decent Gothic entry, there's enough in this one to make it watchable but it's still flawed. Give this one a shot if you're into this kind of film or if there's something about that appeals to you, otherwise then just skip this one altogether.Today's Rating-PG: Violence

paperraven-2 I enjoyed the movie immensely. I had wanted to see it since I was a kid having read about it in SHRIEK! a short lived British horror movie mag.so, 35 years later I finally get to see it and I was not disappointed. It's not a great film, but it certainly shines above many of the horror films that were churned out during the same era (a la Blood of the Vampire 1958). The atmosphere and mood of the film is just right. The only truly annoying thing about the film to me was the beatnik-style music.Yes, it is a Hammer knockoff, but it was one of the better ones. (Even the later Hammer films were "Hammer knockoffs.")I say give it a chance! If you don't you will not know what you are missing.

Coventry Devils of Darkness has a promising sounding title, it's British and it has the typical 60's gothic theme. Yet, it quickly got ignored over the years and it's rarely ever mentioned. Probably because it wasn't made by either of the 3 biggest production companies in that time. The Brit horror industry was ruled by Hammer, Amicus or Tigon and (almost) all their production received cult followings and critics attention. Of course, that can't be the only reason because a good film would be remembered no matter who produced it. Devils of Darkness is anonymous in all fields… Not one aspect in the entire film is worth remembering. It mixes vampirism with other occult elements. A satanic cult, led by Count Sinistre, kidnaps innocent people in order to sacrifice them. An author tries to reveal the secrets and comes into contact with the leader. Devils of Darkness has an extremely promising opening sequence (even before the credits are presented) and the hope you'll see a intriguing occult horror film is falsely raised. After the atmospheric opening, the film quickly falls into boredom with endless speeches and tedious characters. The tension is pretty much non-existent and the few promising horror sequences are too succinct. The beautifully shot cult rites seem to be inspired by Roger Corman's the Masque of the Red Death, but still they're the only sequences worth mentioning. The cast isn't very spectacular, neither. Carol Gray is worth a mention since her beauty reminded me about the typical Hammer sirens. Hubert Noël, the bad guy with a dreadful French accent, is too untalented to make the film memorable and so is director Lance Comfort.