Dracula, principe delle tenebre

Watching it again as I write this, I'm reminded of the numbers of us that flocked to see this and other Hammer offerings in the '60's. It was a preferred film type then, and until Roger Corman introduced psychedelia to the genre it was all comfortably predictable.

Remember, we had all heard of Aleister Crowley (a real satanist of recent times, supposedly), and were all reading Denis Wheatley (The Devil Rides Out, etc). So Hammer obliged and provided the visuals, with surprisingly lush colour and good enough effects.

The "chaps" were all exemplary gentlemen, and it's difficult to imagine how you can traipse around deepest Romania/Transylvania in broken-down horse drawn carriages and keep the crease in trousers / not get plastered in mud. Someone else mentioned that Hammer's "vampire" women always looked better than the real thing, but I have to disagree - the older woman of the foursome group looks extremely good to me (when not stressed and screaming).

It's all good fun, and entertainment for the masses - who responded favourably.

The genre has been revamped time and time again, since Nosferatu, and for the collector this one would have to be in it for completion. Add "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and "Shadow of the Vampire" to the already mentioned Nosferatu and you'd have the Transylvania style covered.

Mind you it's metamorphosed again with the likes of Twilight, with another cult following. Didn't have CGI back in the '60's!.

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.

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.

(76%) A brilliant sequel and a true horror classic that every horror fan should watch at least once. The first unlucky victims murder is really quite strong and brutal, and when one takes into account the 1966 release date it must have really shocked a lot of people back in the day. A great film with top direction and fantastic set design, only let down by the lack of Peter Cushing and the poor decision not to give any lines at all to Christopher Lee, I kind of see what they were going for, but Lee should have been treated a lot better and given something to say. Dracula spoke a lot in the book so there is little reason to mute him here, still a solid movie though and worthy of anyone's time.

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.