Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)

Very well executed

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Although others have some nice things to say about "The Brides of Dracula" (1960), the second film in the Hammer Dracula series, I found it disappointing--not least because kid-vamp Baron Meinster was a poor heir to Christopher Lee's Dracula. It was lacking in the main Hammer ingredients of blood and bosoms. It had color (although, again, too little of the red blood), decent production design on a budget, the music, a few bits of new vampiric lore for the genre and a reworking of, but which was all-too-similar-to, the ending of the 1958 "Dracula." The third in the series, "Dracula: Prince of Darkness," largely corrects its predecessor's missteps--returning to the stuff that made the 1958 original stand out. Appropriately enough, it begins with a recap of the end of the '58 film in an eye framing.As in "The Brides of Dracula," however, and unlike the '58 film, "Prince of Darkness" does delay the reveal of its star. It takes over 45 minutes before Dracula is reincarnated in the film's most gruesome sequence, involving the hanging upside and bloodletting of a corpse. This is the stuff of Michael Myers, Jason, Freddie Krueger, Chucky, etc. al. Of course, there was reincarnation in the Universal monster series, too, especially with the seemingly immortal Frankenstein creature and the Wolf Man. Anyways, there's also some sex appeal again, too, when Helen turns vamp. Moreover, the Helen character is the most interesting one this outing, especially since Lee is entirely mute this time as Drac--reminding me of the confusion the Universal series had back in the day with the voice of the Frankenstein creature. Helen begins as kind of a wet- blanket-wife type, which provides the important horror role of someone being afraid and critical of the impending doom and fantastic sites. The other three travelers are just fun-loving nincompoops. Helen's transformation is more fascinating because of this.Before Dracula's appearance, the film could best be described as falling in the horror subgenre of the old dark house, with the Count's servant Clove filling the shoes of Boris Karloff from the subgenre's namesake, "The Old Dark House" (1932). In this respect, it does well enough in creating a spooky atmosphere. Afterwards, "Prince of Darkness" largely reworks material from Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" and includes the role of Renfield (renamed "Ludwig" here) not used in the bare-bones 1958 adaptation. Dracula's greatest strength, it seems this time, are his human servants, Clove and Ludwig. He's kind of helpless otherwise, especially when people figure out the cross trick. Father Sandor plays the Van Helsing type credibly. And Dracula picks a particularly daring invasion this time, considering his aversion to Christian icons, by making a raid on a monastery.The horse-carriage business earlier on also has the flavor of Stoker, although how the horses lead themselves while Dracula (and his supernatural powers) is still dead, I do not know. In fact, the travelers are only able to control a horse for a getaway after the Count returns. Trying to make sense of such a movie, including the continued geographical confusion of the series where Brits populate Eastern Europe, is probably a fruitless exercise; as the old cliché that one of the characters repeats, best not to look a gift horse in the mouth.Although, once again, the hero employs a makeshift cross, this is done in the middle of the picture, and the burning removal of a bite wound is recycled from "The Brides of Dracula," the ending offers a new take on vampire destruction. As Father Sandor, conspicuously as it gets, explains in one scene, vampires can drown. I wouldn't bet against that tidbit not becoming relevant in the end. But, hey, at least it was different.(Mirror Note: No mirror shots.)

One of the more peculiar incarnations of the Dracula legend has a silent Christopher Lee once again playing the crazed bloodsucker. Two couples, refusing to heed the warning of wily priest Andrew Keir, find themselves in Dracula's Carpathian castle. Mayhem ensues. This classic has it all --- a creepy man-servant, a bloodletting, a bug eating lunatic and Barbara Shelley as a sexy she-vampire. It's all topped off with Lee's astounding work. He has no dialog but commands the screen with his presence. He always played Dracula as a deranged lunatic & it's very effective. Although Lee does not appear until 45 minutes into the film, director Terence Fisher keeps things moving briskly. The supporting cast, particularly Keir, Philip Latham (as Dracula's creepy henchman) and Thorley Walters as the loony Ludwig, is great. Hammer regular James Bernard supplied the suitably grim music score.

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!

Arriving at a strange castle in the wilderness, a group of travelers find that their guest in the presence of Count Dracula has lured them there to regenerate himself and must find a way of stopping the deadly being.While this one might not be as classic as the original, this is still quite a fun effort at times. One of the better elements at play is the very welcome return by Christopher Lee in title role, and this is one of his better efforts. He has an extremely powerful presence here, making the Count incredibly threatening while also playing up his animal side of his character. This is due mainly to that strong performance, effectively mute but with complete physical actions alone do they make the character, easily being one of Lee's best performances. There's also quite a bit of fun here at the expense of the usual Gothic tropes, as the castle stay there is quite effective with its usual grand appearance and generally creepy lay-out and design work that are usual Hammer staples which causes this one to have that same effective atmosphere that usually captivates the viewer. That also allows for scenes like the resurrection sequence to really have a great atmosphere about it much more-so than if it were to take place in another area entirely since the actions themselves, hanging a dead corpse up over a trench containing Dracula's ashes, gutting it and then pouring the draining blood onto them which soon takes the form of the humanized count makes for a deliciously wonderful and chilling sequence that works as well due to the dank basement set where it takes place. As well, the action in the later half is truly inspiring as the conflagration at the end is exciting and features some great action bits thrown in with the assault on the church and then the action back at the castle really settling matters. There are parts here that cause this one to fall short. For one, this takes a very slow and leisurely pace to the proceedings, and that can take its toll on the viewer. Things play out for much longer than they really should, and this makes it a bit of a chore to sit through. Nowhere is this more evident than in the opening half which sets up a series of background pieces they are played far longer than necessary, and that creates some serious pacing problems. Also, Dracula is introduced into the story far too late. It's over the forty-five minute mark, and he really shouldn't be that late coming into the action. Otherwise, this one is quite a bit of fun.Today's Rating/PG-13: Violence.