Blut für Dracula

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.

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!.

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.

Four English tourists: Charles Kent (played by Francis Matthews), his wife Diana (played by Suzan Farmer), his brother Alan (played by Charles Tingwell) and his wife Helen (played by Barbara Shelley) arrive in the Carpathians for a climbing holiday. Despite warnings from the superstitious locals they spend the night at Castle Dracula. Here, Dracula's sinister manservant, Klove (played by Philip Latham), uses the blood of one of them as a life force to resurrect his master...

Dracula Prince Of Darkness was the official sequel to Hammer's Dracula (1958). Hammer had made two follow-ups to their box-office hit with The Brides Of Dracula (1960) and Kiss Of The Vampire (1964), but neither featured Christopher Lee. Some say that Lee refused to repeat his role through fear of becoming typecast, while others say that Hammer dropped him because he wasn't a big enough star. He got billed fourth in the first film. Whatever the reason, Lee finally returned to his original role after seven years and Dracula Prince Of Darkness made it into the top twenty money-spinners of 1966. You will notice in this film that Christopher Lee has no lines, he has always maintained that the lines he was given were so bad that he wouldn't speak them. On the other hand screenwriter Jimmy Sangster (who penned the screenplay under the pseudonym John Samson) swears that he didn't write any.

Dracula Prince Of Darkness stands as one of the best sequels to Hammer's 1958 film, which is regarded by many as a classic. While Christopher Lee has no dialog, he still manages to create a feeling of lurking evil which lasts long after the movie's over. Whereas in later films he was little more than a supporting character with very little to do. The supporting cast which includes Francis Matthews, Andrew Kier and Barbara Shelley is excellent and Thorley Walters does a fine job of portraying the fly-eating Renfield, an original character from Bram Stoker's novel who is renamed here as Ludwig. Philip Latham is also noteworthy as the creepy retainer, Klove. Director Terence Fisher does a fine job of staging the build-up to the Count's resurrection. This first half of the film is genuinely atmospheric, gothic stuff with the camera tracking around the darkened corridors of the castle to suggest that although Dracula himself is dead, his malevolent spirit is present all the time.