Dracula: Prince of Darkness (Ws)

This is one of the worst of the Hammer Dracula movies and to be fair there are more bad ones than good ones. The biggest problem here is that Count Dracula is reduced to being almost entirely animalistic (Lee always maintained the dialogue written for him was so bad he refused to speak any of it). Even without dialogue Lee's performance has its moments, as does that of Kier, but the best thing in "Dracula--Prince of Darkness" is Barbara Steele and you really do not want your main victim stealing the movie. Certainly the victims are much more interesting dead than they were alive.


Pleasing sequel to horror classic   September 23, 2003
Wayne Klein (My Little Blue Window, USA)
9 out of 12 found this review helpful

At first it looked as if Van Helsing would be the center of attention. Peter Cushing reprised his role as Van Helsing in the mislabeled Brides of Dracula. Although the script was uneven (it passed through many hands before Terence Fisher held a final script), it made sense to proceed with Van Helsing; Cushing's portrayal was bold, vivid and powerful enough to make up for Christopher Lee's absence.

Finally Hammer talked Lee into reprising his role. While Lee is terrific in Dracula Prince of Darkness, the script (based on a story by Hammer producer Anthony Hinds writing as John Elder)is once again very uneven. In fact, what makes Prince arresting is Fisher's eerie atmosphere (there, I've said it again after other comments) and his ability to coax strong performances under adverse circumstances. Barabara Shelly shines in her role and, along with Lee and Andrew Keir, makes Prince more memorable than it has any right to be.

Dracula is silent throughout the picture. While it does add to the animalistic qualities of the character (making him substatially less human)it also removes an additional dimension to the character. Reportedly Lee refushed to utter the inane dialog given to him and, as a result, the Count became quiet. Given the constraints of the plot, it works fairly well although, again, one misses the charismatic qualities of Dracula so well played in Horror of Dracula.

The picture starts off well enough with the funeral of a young girl. But rather than burying her, the townspeople and elderly priest plan on putting a stake through her heart and burning her body. Andrew Keir's priest makes his first appearence with the ringing sound of gunfire as he shoots his rifle to get their attention. He criticizes the townspeople (my favorite line of dialog so well delivered by Keir that it works is when he calls the priest "an idiot, no you're worse than an idiot. You're an ignorant, superstitious idiot" or words to those effect)for their ignorance and saves the girl's body from being burned. He shows them that thee are no marks of the vampire and promises to give her a decent burial. When the priest refuses to do the rites, Keir states he'll do them himself. I have to admit I did chuckle when I first saw Keir on horseback as he reminded me of a priestly Lone Ranger with his hood. The scene works because of the conviction of the actors and Keir's delivery. Keir proves to be up to the task of replacing Cushing.

Prince is bloodier than Horror. In the 7 years that had passed, Hammer and horror films in general had become more gruesome. The additional graphic violence and gore works, again, to the film's advantage. It reflects Dracula's more sinister, animal like qualities. The conclusion at the Count's castle with Keir trying to kill Dracula with the unique use of his shooting skills is imaginative even if it does stretch credibility. It's not quite as powerful as the final scene in Horror but it is different.

The transfer is good although not up to the standards I've seen with some Anchor Bay releases. The print appeared jittery and there was a lot of compression artifacts in the earlier, darker scenes. Part of that is due to the fact that it's a single layer disc (although two sided) and part of this is due to the dark look of the film and high speed film used during the shoot. Prince has always been a bit grainer (from what I recall)than Horror and some of Fisher's other Hammer films.

The extras are appealing. First, let me note that there's no rule that says that a commentary can't ramble. Sure Lee does it quite a bit but what can one say about a film make 38 years ago? Barbara Shelly proves to have the most reliable memory about the making of the film. Lee provides a number of interesting (although not always relevant)stories about the making of Prince as well as other Hammer productions. Actor Francis Mathews also appears on the commentary track. Since he's still with us, hopefully someone will hire him to do the same for the other films he appeared in.

The picture quality is good although not outstanding and the mono audio decent. That's not a condemnation; Prince is a fine minor classic and Fisher still demonstrates his usual flair as a director.

It's a pity that the uneven series never got any better than the first film in the series but it's not surprising. Future Hammer scripts were routine and by the numbers for the most part (although Roy Ward Baker did show an imaginative flair in Scars of Dracula as did Peter Sasdy with Taste the Blood of Dracula). The quality of the scripts slid as time wore on. Still, Prince has many of the best qualities that made Horror so memorable. Although it's not king of the Dracula films, it's princely status shall go unchallenged.


Chris Lee is the best   January 11, 2000
S. K Roach (Georgia)
6 out of 8 found this review helpful

Thanks to British bloke Christopher Lee, the vampire has never been portrayed more effectively or more frighteningly on film. 'Dracula, Prince of Darkness' is his first to be released on DVD and happily one of his better outings. The script isn't as effective as his previous 'Horror of Dracula', but the atmosphere is more eerie and the pace is more measured. It's a shame that today's fantasy-horror filmmakers rely far more on violence and gory special effects rather than good acting and storytelling to tell a spooky tale. It least we have the great fright classics of the past to look back on. But Lee is what really makes the film special, even if he does have no lines to speak. Great camerawork by Michael Reed and exciting music by James Bernard.


2nd Lee-Cushing Dracula is a great time   November 5, 2003
Deborah MacGillivray (US & UK)
6 out of 7 found this review helpful

Strangely, this film is referred to often as "the sequel" to Horrors of Dracula, when actually Brides of Dracula was the second in the series. Then it became know as the "prequel to the sequel"...whatever, it's one of the best of the Hammer vampire cycle and a great film for Lee - Cushing fans.

Hammer in it's early days tended to be shortsighted. In the first pairing of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing in Frankenstein, they ended up having Cushing dump Lee's monster into a vat of acid. Super ending - but it literally stopped Lee from returning in a sequel. Cushing did go on to reprise Frankenstein in a series of Films. And it looked like Hammer had repeated the same mistake at the end of The Horrors of Dracula. Wonderful ending of Lee turning to dust and the wind carrying him away...only, they once again stopped any hope of Lee returning in the next film. Cushing went on to make the critically acclaimed Brides of Dracula, many often site as the better film, but it lacked Lee and that lack really hurts the film. David Peel just did not have the power and presence Lee did in the cape!!

So Hammer put their thinking caps on and 8 years (and Lee refusing to put on the cape) they came up came up with a way to bring Lee back to "life" for a the sequel. Okay, a little stretch, but it worked! Hammer made sure never to kill of Lee "permanently" again!! The box office pairing of Lee and Cushing was magic.

Two English couples traveling through Transylvania end up spending the night at the Drac's Castle. Lee's servant brings the Count back to "life" and he is off and up to old tricks. The film is super, Hammer at top form with Terrence Fisher as director. Just a SHAME they kept Dracula mute with no lines.


Silence is not golden   November 29, 1999
Mark McKinney (Maryland)
5 out of 7 found this review helpful

The first sequel to the Horror of Dracula falls way short of the first film. Dracula is accidently revived and reeks havoc on two visiting couples. The sets and costumes are vibrant and catching. The biggest problem with the film is that Christopher Lee does not speak, it does not matter who they are or how good he was in the first film, growling and hissing only go so far. By not giving Lee any lines, this film started out as sub-par and could not hope to dig itself out of the hole. The film does have some interesting action scenes leading to the climax, but the conclusion is very flimsy and hokey. This is a film that eventually falls short of it's mark.