Chris Lee makes his second appearance as Count Dracula in this
sequel to Hammer's original Dracula (USA title: Horror of Dracula)
after an 8 year absence from the role. This is actually the 3rd film
in the series since, while Dracula himself does not appear in
1960's Brides of Dracula, Peter Cushing reprises his role as the
vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing in that film. Too bad Cushing is
not on hand for this outing. While not completely bad, this movie
suffers from Hammer's wrong headed decision that we should
care more about the characters who are to be victimized by the
Count than we do about the Count himself. Therefore, it is quite
some time into the movie before Dracula makes his first
appearance, while we are subjected to spending quality time with
4 completely dull English travelers who unwittingly make their way
to Castle Dracula. Once Lee does enter the picture, he basically
has to make do with a mute, almost cameo role. After all this time,
wouldn't the producers of this movie have thought that audiences
would be starving for healthier doses of Lee's inimitable portrait of
the King of Vampires? This annoyance is even more frustrating on
commercial TV, where commercials pad out the opening sequences, delaying Dracula's appearance even more painfully. Unfortunately, these same mistakes are made in this entry's
immediate sequel, Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (although
Lee does at least have a few meager -- and poorly written -- lines
in that film and gets a bit more screen time). It wouldn't be until the
5th film in the series, Taste The Blood Of Dracula, that Hammer
would produce a complex and literate film worthy of Lee and the
Count. This isn't to say that either Prince of Darkness nor Risen
From the Grave do not have their share of effective moments. In
this film, the most effective moments include the incredible
resurrection sequence wherein the Count's faithful man-servant
strings up a victim over the coffin containing Dracula's ashy
remains and proceeds to slice open his stomach so that the blood
mixes with the ashes and revives the Count. I love the detail here
of seeing Dracula's naked arm popping up over the rim of the
crypt... similar sequences in later films would assume that the
Count would be resurrected in full costume. Another particularly
intense sequence involves the staking of one of Dracula's vampire
brides by a local priest. Here Barbara Shelley's performance as
the tormented creature is incredibly effective. All in all, still a fairly enjoyable film for fans of this genre (and
this Hammer series in particular). My advice would still be to stick
with the original film and the superior sequels, Brides of Dracula
and Taste the Blood of Dracula. And just for controversy's sake, I
would also recommend the slapdash, but entertainingly manic
Scars of Dracula, which breaks from the continuity of the original
series, but returns Dracula to the role of mysteriously sinister host
bidding welcome to unwary guests at his castle.
sequel to Hammer's original Dracula (USA title: Horror of Dracula)
after an 8 year absence from the role. This is actually the 3rd film
in the series since, while Dracula himself does not appear in
1960's Brides of Dracula, Peter Cushing reprises his role as the
vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing in that film. Too bad Cushing is
not on hand for this outing. While not completely bad, this movie
suffers from Hammer's wrong headed decision that we should
care more about the characters who are to be victimized by the
Count than we do about the Count himself. Therefore, it is quite
some time into the movie before Dracula makes his first
appearance, while we are subjected to spending quality time with
4 completely dull English travelers who unwittingly make their way
to Castle Dracula. Once Lee does enter the picture, he basically
has to make do with a mute, almost cameo role. After all this time,
wouldn't the producers of this movie have thought that audiences
would be starving for healthier doses of Lee's inimitable portrait of
the King of Vampires? This annoyance is even more frustrating on
commercial TV, where commercials pad out the opening sequences, delaying Dracula's appearance even more painfully. Unfortunately, these same mistakes are made in this entry's
immediate sequel, Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (although
Lee does at least have a few meager -- and poorly written -- lines
in that film and gets a bit more screen time). It wouldn't be until the
5th film in the series, Taste The Blood Of Dracula, that Hammer
would produce a complex and literate film worthy of Lee and the
Count. This isn't to say that either Prince of Darkness nor Risen
From the Grave do not have their share of effective moments. In
this film, the most effective moments include the incredible
resurrection sequence wherein the Count's faithful man-servant
strings up a victim over the coffin containing Dracula's ashy
remains and proceeds to slice open his stomach so that the blood
mixes with the ashes and revives the Count. I love the detail here
of seeing Dracula's naked arm popping up over the rim of the
crypt... similar sequences in later films would assume that the
Count would be resurrected in full costume. Another particularly
intense sequence involves the staking of one of Dracula's vampire
brides by a local priest. Here Barbara Shelley's performance as
the tormented creature is incredibly effective. All in all, still a fairly enjoyable film for fans of this genre (and
this Hammer series in particular). My advice would still be to stick
with the original film and the superior sequels, Brides of Dracula
and Taste the Blood of Dracula. And just for controversy's sake, I
would also recommend the slapdash, but entertainingly manic
Scars of Dracula, which breaks from the continuity of the original
series, but returns Dracula to the role of mysteriously sinister host
bidding welcome to unwary guests at his castle.