Huievest
Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.
Taha Avalos
The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.
Rexanne
It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
Prichards12345
There are some effective scenes in Dracula Prince of Darkness, most notably the revival of the old Count himself by his manservant. The story however, relies upon the strangers stranded in an old house they've been warned against trope, and Dracula himself is curiously sidelined for much of the movie.Gone also is the gorgeous colour pallet of Hammer's first Dracula; instead we have a fairly bland-looking widescreen film, which makes it feel more about cost-cutting than developing the series further. While Father Sandor (Andrew Keir) is an acceptable replacement for Van Helsing he isn't given enough screen time. Only Barbara Shelly rises above the material to give a good performance.Poor old Christopher Lee. No wonder he used to moan so much about the shoe-horning of Dracula into any old story. He's ill used here and doesn't have a single line of dialogue.There are some compensations however. The brutal sacrifice of one of the tourist party to resurrect Dracula is extremely well done and surprisingly gruesome, as Kensington Gore rains down upon Dracula's ashes. Also the staking of Barbara Shelly is powerful - almost a symbolic rape-scene as the clergy pin her down. And the climax is pretty good, too. Adequate if not great, then, on the whole.
Rocketeer_Raccoon
Dracula: Prince of Darkness is the second Hammer Dracula film to star legendary actor Christopher Lee as the iconic Dracula, although The Brides Of Dracula was the first sequel to Hammer's 'Dracula' (a.k.a. 'Horror Of Dracula') but since that film only had Peter Cushing reprising as Doctor Van Helsing and completely lacked the character of Dracula, Dracula: Prince of Darkness is the first direct sequel to feature the famous vampire in the Hammer Dracula series.Unfortunately it didn't quite turn out the way it should have, the biggest major fault with this film is that Dracula doesn't actually say anything apart from hissing, supposedly this was because Christopher Lee hated the dialogue in the film's script so he refused to say any of it and Hammer had no choice but to just go with it. But never the less when Dracula does finally appear at the half way point of the film, he pretty much steals the show. Acting wise I thought it was fine for 1960's standards and the movie has some real nice practical effects.Granted that the film could have been better if Dracula actually talked but with that said it's still a decent classic.
TeresaCarledo
This is a Gothic masterpiece compared to modern horror crap or even mainstream rubbish that fills megaplexes nowadays, but D-POD has it's faults. The color cinematography by Michael Reed, so gorgeous in The Gorgon, is not bad, and it certainly is better than modern use of color, but it lacks lush beauty and atmosphere of Hammer's earlier Gothics, making me hope that Jack Asher or Arthur Grant would have been behind the camera. Then this may have been fault of Hammer's penny- pinching tactics; they filmed Rasputin the Mad Monk in the same sets.Barbara Shelley as the Helen is frustratingly sacrificed because she is not young blonde; Helen is not only right - the Castle Dracula and it's surroundings are indeed, like the monk Sandor warned, very beautiful and very deadly, like a poisonous flower - but writer Jimmy Sangster and Hammer punish her, because she is "aging" redhead. In a fair world simpering young Diana would have unleashed her evil, wanton creature of the night, and Helen would have been the Final girl, like she so much deserved. Alas!
MisterWhiplash
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!
