IMDb user comments for
Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Index

54 comments in total

---

11 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Hammer Fans Unite!, 6 November 2003
Author: Bucs1960 from West Virginia

There 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.

---

9 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
The count plays second fiddle to a no nonsense priest., 19 April 2001
Author: Bynovekka1 from United States

Christopher Lee first put on his max factor fangs for Hammer productions in 1958. The result was the marvelous technicolor classic "The Horror of Dracula". Despite the film's awesome success it took Hammer eight years to convince Lee to do a sequel. The result was the far less heralded but nearly as good "Dracula-Prince of Darkness".

Taking place ten years after the vampire king's demise at the end the of "Horror", "Prince of Darkness" concerns two British couples traveling through central europe on a sight seeing venture. Ignoring warnings to avoid Castle Dracula the foolhardy band enter the vampire's abode and must battle for their lives against the recently resurrected count. One couple escapes and finds sanctuary at the nearby monastery of the Abbott of Kleinberg.

Enraged, Dracula pursues to reclaim his lost prey. Unfortunately, the master bloodsucker must first contend with the Abbott who knows how to deal with toothsome troublemakers.

Lee is his ghoulishly macho self in the title role. Hammer pinup girls Barbara Shelly and Suzan Farmer are appropriately pretty. Peter Latham is effective as the count's creepy man friday, Klove. But the real star of this outing is Andrew Keir as the Abbott, Father Sandor. Tough, gruff, witty and righteous Sandor is a every bit as worthy an opponent for the count as Van Helsing was in the original.

---

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
This is one of the best tales of Dracula I've ever seen., 22 April 2006

Author: Golgo-13 from The IMDb Horror Board!

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.

---

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
"One of the best Dracula films in the Hammer series", 27 August 2003
Author: jamesraeburn2003 from Poole, Dorset

Four English tourists arrive in the Carpathians for a climbing holiday. Despite warnings from the superstitious locals they spend the night at Castle Dracula, where Dracula's sinister manservant uses the blood of one of them as a life force to resurrect his long dead master...

Dracula Prince Of Darkness was the official sequel to Hammer's Dracula (1958). Hammer had made two follow-ups to their box-office hit with The Brides Of Dracula (1960) and Kiss Of The Vampire (1964), but neither featured Christopher Lee. Some say that Lee refused to repeat his role through fear of becoming typecast, while others say that Hammer dropped him because he wasn't a big enough star. He got billed fourth in the first film. Whatever the reason, Lee finally returned to his original role after seven years and Dracula Prince Of Darkness made it into the top twenty moneyspinners of 1966. You will notice in this film that Christopher Lee has no lines, he has always maintained that the lines he was given were so bad that he wouldn't speak them. On the other hand screenwriter Jimmy Sangster (who penned the screenplay under the pseudonym John Samson) swears that he didn't write any.

Dracula Prince Of Darkness stands as one of the best sequels to Hammer's 1958 film, which is regarded by many as a classic. While Christopher Lee has no dialog, he still manages to create a feeling of lurking evil which lasts long after the movie's over. Whereas in later films he was little more than a supporting character with very little to do. The supporting cast which includes Francis Matthews and Barbara Shelley is excellent and Thorley Walters does a fine job of portraying the fly-eating Renfield, an original character from Bram Stoker's novel who is renamed here as Ludwig.

---

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
A River Runs Through Him, 11 July 2000
Author: BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC

Hammer brought Christopher Lee back after an eight year absence to play Count Dracula once more in this film, also directed by Horror of Dracula director Terrence Fisher. Fisher does a fine job creating tension as two English couples pay no heed to a priest's advice and go to Carlsbad AND to the unmarked castle in the forest. There a servant of the evil count kills one of the men(admirably played by Charles Tingwell) and uses his blood to ressurect his master. From there on, Lee creates havoc among the house guests. The typical Hammer touches are all here: bright colours, beautiful scenes and sets, great music by James Bernard, and a fine, talented acting group. Lee is very menacing as the count, yet the real star of the film for me is Andrew Keir as an outspoken Van Helsing-like priest. The Hammer girls are as always very easy on the eyes. Barbara Shelley makes a beautiful vampire. Though the script comes up a bit short to make this one of Hammer's best vampire films, all the rest certainly make it very entertaining.

---

6 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Dracula makes a successful comeback!, 23 February 2005

Author: The_Void from Beverley Hills, England

Though 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.

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Christopher Lee: silent terror icon!, 29 March 2005

Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Which actor, apart from the almighty Christopher Lee, can permit himself to only appear in a movie when it's half way through, not to speak one word and then STILL deliver a terrific and spooky performance as the personification of evil?? Indeed, no one! Christopher Lee is a brilliant actor and "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" is a great sequel and part of Hammer Studio's finest achievements. The opening sequence – featuring footage from the original in which Peter Cushing eventually destroys the Count – already indicates that this is the official sequel to "Horror of Dracula" and that it isn't necessary to have seen "Brides of Dracula" that didn't star Lee. In this chapter, Count Dracula has his eye set on two British couples that are traveling through Eastern Europe. With the help of his human accomplices, Dracula resurrects by the blood of one couple and he immediately goes after the other. The helpless couple is protected by Father Sandor (great role by Andrew Keir) who more or less replaces Cushing as the vampires' worst nightmare! Dracula: Prince of Darkness simply bathes in an irresistible atmosphere of sensuality and mystery. The legendary Bray Studios once again provide this Hammer film with a beautiful and nightmarish shooting location, while the professional directing skills of Terence Fisher are as flawless as always. He truly is one of the greatest horror directors who ever lived! Numerous sequences and little details point out that this is the absolute best sequel in the entire cycle of 7 Dracula movies produced by Hammer. To state only a few examples: the impressive resurrection scene, in which the prudish Victorian couple is mercilessly sacrificed to bring back the count. Or the ingenious end-twist to eventually destroy him again! Great film, highly recommended!

---

5 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the very best entries in Hammer's Dracula series., 24 June 2003
Author: Infofreak from Perth, Australia

'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!

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Enjoyable albeit shallow revisit to Transylvania., 23 May 2003
Author: Jonathon Dabell (barnabyrudge@hotmail.com) from Wakefield, England

Dracula (Christopher Lee) rides again in yet another Hammer entry in the Dracula franchise. This film is enjoyable horror hokum, but it has an awfully shallow story, fleshed out with a slow opening stretch and some amusing vampire lore in between the sporadic vampire attacks.

Four British travellers are journeying through the Carpathian Alps in the 1800s. They are repeatedly cautioned to steer clear of Carlsbad Castle but, being typically stuffy and stubborn, they end up going there anyway. The castle is deserted apart from a rather zombified manservant. During the night, one of the travellers is slain by the manservant, and his blood is used to resurrect the long-dead Count Dracula. Time for another bout of blood-sucking mayhem....

Christopher Lee has a small role this time around, but gets across a good performance due to his commanding presence in the title role. Andrew Keir is also good as a priest-cum-vampire-slayer, though he has to overcome some dumb dialogue. The slow build-up is rather damaging, as it generates more tedium than chills. The opportunities for real terror are somewhat fudged too, since most would-be "shock" moments are telegraphed too far in advance. However, Hammer buffs and vampire addicts will doubtless feel more than satisfied.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
A Dracula movie that is both different and full of plot holes, 30 July 2006

Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history