a list that is trying to contain every horror film made that is not lost and is found on the…
Dracula: Prince of Darkness
DEAD for Ten Years DRACULA, Prince of Darkness, LIVES AGAIN!
Whilst vacationing in the Carpathian Mountain, two couples stumble across the remains of Count Dracula's castle. The Count's trusted servant kills one of the men, suspending the body over the Count's ashes so that the blood drips from the corpse and saturates the blackened remains. The ritual is completed, the Count revived and his attentions focus on the dead man's wife who is to become his partner; devoted to an existence of depravity and evil.
There'll be no morning for us.
This sequel looses Peter Cushing and his character of Dr. Van Helsing, but regains Christopher Lee in the role of Dracula. While I love Cushing in these films, it seems to be a fair tradeoff to regain the character of Dracula for your newest Dracula sequel. It doesn't retcon or reboot anything however and acknowledges the fact that the good old Count is supposed to be dead and that's where lies the great little horror tale that unfolds.
As a stand alone film this is a great little horror yarn, but I imagine people expecting it to showcase Christopher Lee as Dracula will be disappointed. Most of the story is about how…
Ten minutes ago we were stranded in the cold, miles away from anywhere. Now we're warm. We're going to be fed. And if that man's master is anything like I think he's going to be, we're going to be entertained as well.
Even though it took 8 years for Christopher Lee to return as Dracula, Hammer Films still accomplished something that Universal Pictures never did and that's make a proper sequel to their Dracula with it's original star. Of course Hammer would go beyond just that as Lee ended up playing the Count five more times for the studio.
Even by today's standards Lee's take on Dracula is beyond what you usually see. He makes him look crazed…
Though Dracula: Prince of Darkness is a better made sequel, I much prefer Hammer's ludicrous 70s Dracula output like Scars of Dracula and Dracula A.D. 1972. Still Dracula: Prince of Darkness entertains. It has everything you'd want from a Hammer flick: an ominous castle, a creepy human sidekick for Dracula, pompous rich couples not taking the advice of locals, bright red blood, and Christopher Lee. With Terence Fisher in the director's chair, it's pretty much a guaranteed winner. I love the way Fisher uses colour and only moves the camera when he needs to. He's truly Hammer's finest director. Lee is quite terrifying in this entry with his bloodshot eyes and animalistic portrayal of Dracula, though it's frustrating how long…
We've seen it all before, but this seems almost like the perfecting of a formula for Hammer, and as a fan, this makes for a very appealing film. This mute, bestial, red-eyed reconstitution of Dracula, may not get much screen time, but Christopher Lee makes every second, ahem, Count. And of course we get all the other gothic trappings that make a classic Hammer Horror. It may not be one of the best, but it's one of my favorites from the studio.
I'm no expert in anatomy, but I'm pretty sure the heart isn't located around the lower left ribcage
"If that man's master is anything like I think he's going to be, we're going to be entertained as well"
- Diana (Oh yes Diana, you will be!)
In his final run as director, Terence Fisher follows the formula of Horror of Dracula and Brides of Dracula very closely, creating a dreading atmosphere, incorporating fantastic and elobarate settings and using grotesque visual effects to enhance the horror of the film. Christopher Lee returns, 8 years after his first run as Dracula and is arguably better here than in the original. His tall and unparalleled height comes off as imposing and his energetic and versatile personality as an actor are perfectly played into his role as Dracula. Incorporating elements of Lugosi's…
This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.
The second of Christopher Lee's appearances as Dracula for Hammer, Dracula: Prince of Darkness seems to oddly embody all the stereotypical tropes of the Hammer Dracula cycle. The resurrection of the Count, the ever-so English tourists blundering in to something they cannot comprehend, the "don't-go-near-the-castle", the heavy hints (subtler than later) of lesbianism with the vampirism, the staking of a vampire bride, the much more ingenious death of the count at the end... If one were to assemble a quintessential Hammer Dracula film, this would be it.
It's noticeable that the Dracula of this film is different from the somewhat urbane presence of Dracula (1958). He has no dialogue whatever, but hisses and snarls like the demonic entity he is…
Lee is back but Cushing is the causality this time and something just feels a little off.
Lee, unspeaking and limited is perhaps at his most feral and frightening though.
All the trappings of a Hammer and a Dracula and a Hammer Dracula are on full display here.
I forgot how bad this was and that Christopher Lee doesn't speak at all in it.
Christopher Lee was made to play Dracula. He doesn't say a word in this film but he is still frightening.
His manservant (who made no appearance in the first film) lures some unsuspecting travellers into Castle Dracula and then kills one to resurrect his old boss.
Most Dracula films do not focus on the Count. This has an engaging story of two couples and a priest who must come together and face evil. New rules seem to be made up to fit the filmmakers' needs, but it all comes together in an engaging story.
The ending is a bit anticlimactic, but it would be hard to match or exceed the first film's thrilling end battle. I consider that to be one of the best scenes in movie history. But overall it succeeds in being a solid horror sequel.
The quartet of English travelers that make up the protagonists are such a thorough bunch of ninnyhammers that one might be forgiven for wondering if "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" was a British remake of "Abbot and Costello meet Dracula"
I'm not positive this is the film I watched that bored me to death. I do know it's called prince of darkness & I saw it on YouTube. I'm not sure if it's this one or a remake of it but if it's this one, definitely not a fan of it.
What the hell was with that Dracula death scene?
Crappy Halloween movie number 2. This one firmly puts the ham in Hammer horror. What passed for scary in the 60's is a dreary bore in this era (and this coming from somebody who generally loves old films). Dracula is hardly in it and only hisses like an annoying cat when he is.
The lighting is not even close to atmospheric (really wish I knew the word that means 'opposite of atmospheric' so I could use it here), the performances are kooky, it doesn't look cinematic and the plot is dull.
Ah well, can't win em all. And this is a sequel after all so perhaps they were just cashing in on the superior first film.
Hoop-Tober 2015 Entry #26
Has almost everything I like about Hammer horror films - beautiful color, atmosphere...but man oh man, Christopher Lee just did not look like he was enjoying this at all. I've read all the conflicting views as to why Dracula doesn't talk in this but that doesn't explain the lackluster fights (that sword fight made my heart hurt) the terrible pacing and some real poor dialog.
Terence Fisher does what he can to make everything look good, but this feels like a case of a cash-in quickie ideas strung together instead of the more cohesive and interesting films from that came before. I miss Cushing, but in Father Sandor you get an interesting replacement, and the there…
This list is the Letterboxd version of The Oxford History of World Cinema.
The book celebrates and chronicles over one…
With the announcement of the line-up for the 2013 FrightFest Halloween All-nighter, I thought it was about time there was…