Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)

Simply A Masterpiece

Blistering performances.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

This 1966 movie was, you might say,an official sequel to Terence Fisher's 1958 "Dracula", opening as it does with the ending of the earlier film and there are some who think it's the superior picture. In the interim, films had become just that little bit more explicit so that this time round Fisher could up the ante, at least in terms of violence, if not sex.Peter Cushing's Van Helsing was no longer on hand, being replaced by Andrew Keir's somewhat gruff priest but Hammer had found a new Queen of Horror in Barbara Shelley and she's excellent as the latest addition to the count's harem. The difference here is that this time Dracula never speaks which, in a way, makes him all the more terrifying; the real stuff of nightmares. As well as Lee, Shelley and Keir there is a good supporting cast including Francis Matthews, Charles Tingwell, Thorley Walters and a suitably menacing Philip Latham as Dracula's faithful manservant.

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.)

The story takes a while to set things up but once the guests arrive at Castle Dracula, things take a quick and nasty turn. I thought the revival of Count Dracula (Christopher Lee) was quite creatively done, brought forth from his own ashes and mingled with the blood from the slit throat of Alan Kent (Charles Tingwell). You know, it's probably a good thing that the principals in these movies never take the advice of the one rational member of their entourage. Had everyone just listened to Alan's wife Helen (Barbara Shelley), things would have been okay but then we wouldn't have had a story.Most of the typical Dracula myth elements are provided here like the fear of a crucifix and the curse of daylight, but I was really scratching my head over the moving water business; I'd never heard of that one before. I guess if one wants to get technical, the moat around Castle Dracula wouldn't have been flowing water, but that's probably just being picky. Who wants to see Dracula flame out in daylight at the end of every picture?Hammer Films did a pretty good job with this installment of their Dracula franchise. I didn't really think about it till the end of the story, but Christopher Lee didn't speak at all in the picture, relying more on that nasty hiss as his calling card. He had that one great scene when his eyes popped while waking up in his coffin, and there was a great shot of his billowing cape down in the courtyard of the castle. Considering he had a ten year dirt nap waiting for his time to come around again, it might have been a good idea for Klove (Philip Latham) to pick up a bottle of Murine during one of his trips into town.

Horror of Dracula will always be my favourite of the Hammer Dracula series, but Dracula: Prince of Darkness is still very good and one of the best in the series.There are a couple of imperfections, with Dracula: Prince of Darkness' main flaw being the rather too-long a time it takes to set up, with some of the first thirty minutes being a little draggy. The dialogue is also rather ham-fisted and over-silly, which was a bit of a shock to me seeing as the script was penned by Jimmy Sangster, whose scripts for Hammer are usually quite intelligent and nuanced. The acting is very solid on the whole, but Francis Matthews is somewhat stiff and pallid as the hero, and his chemistry with Suzan Farmer, who with her charming sympathetic presence actually acquits herself pretty well, is a little on the dull side.Dracula: Prince of Darkness looks great though. It's very beautifully shot and has a wonderfully sumptuous Gothic atmosphere throughout. The handsome sets and period detail are very evocative, and the colours are strikingly atmospheric. James Bernard's music score is very effective, it isn't too complicated but what it is is very elegant in orchestration and effortlessly creates chills without ever being too obvious. Dracula: Prince of Darkness may get off to a slow start, but the story is mostly entertaining and engrossing. Sure it is not unlike anything we have seen already, but that didn't matter, because a vast majority of the film is brilliantly suspenseful and has a genuine sense of dread and creepy atmosphere, the chills and scares pitched beautifully. There are also three unforgettable scenes, the still shocking(and quite gruesome) Dracula resurrection, Helen's pretty nerve-shredding demise and the exciting climax on the ice.Regarding the acting, it's solid on the whole apart from Matthews. The sadly late legendary Christopher Lee, even without saying a word, still induces goose-bumps as Dracula, while a wonderfully gruff Andrew Keir is a worthy opponent for him(if not erasing memories of Peter Cushing, not that one should really be expecting that) and Barbara Shelley proves herself to be more than just a beautiful-looking scream queen, there's some nice sympathetic depth to her performance. Phillip Latham is very creepy as Klove and Thorley Walters' Ludwig sends shivers down the spine. Terence Fisher directs adeptly.All in all, while not quite Hammer at their finest, even with its flaws, Dracula: Prince of Darkness is still one of the standouts of the Hammer Dracula series. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox