VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,6/10
11.540
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Dracula è resuscitato, depredando quattro ignari visitatori del suo castello.Dracula è resuscitato, depredando quattro ignari visitatori del suo castello.Dracula è resuscitato, depredando quattro ignari visitatori del suo castello.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Charles 'Bud' Tingwell
- Alan
- (as Charles Tingwell)
Peter Cushing
- Doctor Van Helsing
- (filmato d'archivio)
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Alistair Dick
- Monk
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Lee Fenton
- Monk
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
George Holdcroft
- Monk
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
'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!
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.
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.
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.
Dracula Prince Of Darkness is in many ways as good as the first of the Hammer Draculas. It isn't actually the first sequel they made- that being The Brides Of Dracula- but that did not have Dracula in it, it actually being another adventure for Peter Cushing's Van Helsing, the vampire hunter. This film is hardly a classic, but it's extremely effective in what it sets out to do.
Rather disappointingly, Dracula is not revived {in startlingly gory fashion}until half the film is over, and even after that only puts in brief appearances. Although this has been heavily criticised, in some ways it makes the film more effective ,as you don't always know when he is going to appear. He doesn't even speak ,just hisses. The leisurely first half is nonetheless full of creepy atmosphere, while the second half is pretty much all action. The scene where a writhing Barbara Shelley is held down and staked remains astonishingly effective, and only Dracula's icy demise seems a little unconvincing technically.
Of course the sexual element is hardly worth thinking about- prudish Shelley becomes'eroticised'as a vampire and than has to be killed, and why were the Hammer ladies always far more attractive in their vampiric form? Still, this film shows many of the Hammer elements at their best.
Rather disappointingly, Dracula is not revived {in startlingly gory fashion}until half the film is over, and even after that only puts in brief appearances. Although this has been heavily criticised, in some ways it makes the film more effective ,as you don't always know when he is going to appear. He doesn't even speak ,just hisses. The leisurely first half is nonetheless full of creepy atmosphere, while the second half is pretty much all action. The scene where a writhing Barbara Shelley is held down and staked remains astonishingly effective, and only Dracula's icy demise seems a little unconvincing technically.
Of course the sexual element is hardly worth thinking about- prudish Shelley becomes'eroticised'as a vampire and than has to be killed, and why were the Hammer ladies always far more attractive in their vampiric form? Still, this film shows many of the Hammer elements at their best.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizIn the scene where Dracula is being "resurrected" from a coffin into which his ashes have been spread, from blood dripping down from a poor victim (provided by Klove) Dracula is made to "manifest himself" over a period of about a minute. This was achieved by overlapping "dissolves" of a series of twelve locked-down camera shots, involving first the ashes, then a skeleton, then some body-fat on the skeleton, et cetera, along with swirling mist, until we finally perceive the full form of Dracula. He doesn't appear fully dressed as is usually the case. The shot moves to outside the coffin and a bare arm reaches out. The vampire's clothes were seen in earlier scenes awaiting his return.
- BlooperDiana holds the crucifix out towards Dracula twice in successive camera shots from the back whilst front shots don't show her holding it at all.
- Citazioni
Alan Kent: You forget about all of this in the morning, you'll see.
Helen Kent: There'll be no morning for us.
- Versioni alternativeThe UK cinema version was cut by the BBFC with edits to blood flows during the resurrection scene, a closeup shot of Helen's staking, and a shortening of the seduction scene where Dracula pulls a hypnotized Diana towards his chest wound. Video releases featured the cut cinema print though all widescreen DVD releases feature the fully uncut version.
- ConnessioniEdited from Dracula il vampiro (1958)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Dracula: Prince of Darkness
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 100.000 £ (previsto)
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 30min(90 min)
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti